Spokane building a smart city from the grid out - EF News

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

Sault Ste. Marie Smart Grid Investment upgrades PUC Distribution infrastructure with federal funding, clean energy tech, outage reduction, customer insights, and reliability gains, creating 140 jobs and attracting industry to a resilient, efficient grid.

Key Points

A federally funded PUC Distribution project to modernize the citywide grid, cut outages, boost efficiency, and create jobs.

✅ $11.8M federal funding to PUC Distribution

✅ Citywide smart grid cuts outages and energy loss

✅ 140 jobs; attracts clean tech and industry

PUC Distribution Inc. in Sault Ste. Marie is receiving $11.8 million from the federal government to invest in infrastructure, as utilities nationwide have faced pandemic-related losses that underscore the need for resilient systems.

The MP for the riding, Terry Sheehan, made the announcement on Monday.

The money will go to the utility's smart grid project, where technologies like a centralized SCADA system can enhance situational awareness and control.

"This smart grid project offers a glimpse into our clean energy future and represents a new wave of economic activity for the region," Sheehan said.

"Along with job creation, new industries will be attracted to a modern grid, supported by stable electricity pricing that helps competitiveness, all while helping the environment."

His office says the investment will allow the utility to reduce outages, provide more information to customers to help make smarter electricity use choices, aligned with Ontario's energy-efficiency programs that encourage conservation, and offer more services.

"This is an innovative project that makes Sault Ste. Marie a leader," mayor Christian Provenzano said.

"We will be the first city in our country to implement a community-wide smart grid. Once it is complete, the smart grid will make our energy infrastructure more reliable, reduce energy loss and lead to a more innovative economy for our community."

The project will also create 140 new jobs.

"As a community-focused utility, we are always looking for innovative ways to help our customers save money amid concerns about hydro disconnections during winter, and reduce their carbon footprint," Rob Brewster, president and CEO of PUC Distribution said.

"The investment the government has made in our community will not only help modernize our city's electrical distribution system [as] once the project is complete, Sault Ste. Marie will have access to an electricity grid that can handle the growing demands of a city in the 21st century."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Unanimous FERC vote rejects coal and nuclear compensation

✅ Cites no threat to grid reliability from plant retirements

✅ Opponents warned subsidies would distort power markets and prices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One Bill Redesign Spending sparks debate over Ontario Energy Board regulation, rate applications, privatization, and digital billing upgrades, as surveys cite confusing invoices under the Fair Hydro Plan for residential, commercial, and industrial customers.

Key Points

$15M project to simplify Hydro One bills, upgrade systems, and improve digital billing for commercial customers.

✅ $9M spent; $6M proposed for C&I and large-account changes.

✅ OEB to rule amid rate application and privatization scrutiny.

✅ Survey: 40% of customers struggled to understand bills.

Ontario's largest and recently privatized electricity utility has spent $9-million to redesign bills and is proposing to spend an additional $6-million on the project.

Hydro One has come under fire for spending since the Liberal government sold more than half of the company, notably for its CEO's $4.5-million pay.

Now, the NDP is raising concerns with the $15-million bill redesign expense contained in a rate application from the formerly public utility.

"I don't think the problem we face is a bill that people can't understand, I think the problem is rates that are too high," said energy critic Peter Tabuns. "Fifteen million dollars seems awfully expensive to me."

But Hydro One says a 2016 survey of its customers indicated about 40 per cent had trouble understanding their bills.

Ferio Pugliese, the company's executive vice-president of customer care and corporate affairs, said the redesign was aimed at giving customers a simpler bill.

"The new format is a format that when tested and put in front of our customers has been designed to give customers the four or five salient items they want to see on their bill," he said.

About $9-million has already gone into redesigning bills, mostly for residential customers, Pugliese said. Cosmetic changes to bills account for about 25 per cent of the cost, with the rest of the money going toward updating information systems and improving digital billing platforms, he said.

The additional $6-million Hydro One is looking to spend would go toward bill changes mostly for its commercial, industrial and large distribution account customers.

Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault noted in a statement that the Ontario Energy Board has yet to decide on the expense, but he suggested he sees the bill redesign as necessary alongside legislation to lower electricity rates introduced by the province.

"With Ontarians wanting clearer bills that are easier to understand, Hydro One's bill redesign project is a necessary improvement that will help customers," he wrote.

"Reductions from the Fair Hydro Plan (the government's 25 per cent cut to bills last year) are important information for both households and businesses, and it's our job to provide clear, helpful answers whenever possible."

The OEB recently ordered Hydro One to lower a rate increase it had been seeking for this year to 0.2 per cent down from 4.8 per cent.

The regulator also rejected a Hydro One proposal to give shareholders all of the tax savings generated by the IPO in 2015 when the Liberal government first began partially privatizing the utility. The OEB instead mandated shareholders receive 62 per cent of the savings while ratepayers receive the remaining 38 per cent.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

French Antitrust Fines for Electrical Cartel expose price fixing by Schneider Electric, Legrand, Rexel, and Sonepar, after a Competition Authority probe into electrical distribution, collusion, and compliance breaches impacting market competition and customers.

Key Points

Penalties on Schneider Electric, Legrand, Rexel, and Sonepar for electrical price fixing, upholding competition law.

✅ Competition Authority fined four major suppliers.

✅ Collusion raised prices across construction and industry.

✅ Firms bolster compliance programs and training.

In a significant crackdown on corporate malfeasance, French authorities have imposed hefty fines on four major electrical equipment companies—Schneider Electric, Legrand, Rexel, and Sonepar—after concluding a price-fixing investigation. The total fines amount to approximately €500 million, underscoring the seriousness with which regulators are addressing anti-competitive practices in the electrical distribution sector, even as France advances a new electricity pricing scheme to address EU concerns.

Background of the Investigation

The probe, initiated by France’s Competition Authority, sought to uncover collusion among these leading firms regarding the pricing of electrical equipment and services between 2005 and 2012. This investigation is part of a broader initiative to promote fair competition within the market, as Europe prepares to revamp its electricity market to bolster transparency, ensuring that consumers and businesses alike benefit from competitive pricing and innovative products.

The inquiry revealed that these companies had engaged in illicit agreements to fix prices and coordinate their market strategies, limiting competition in a sector critical to both the economy and infrastructure. The findings indicated that the collusion not only stifled competition but also led to inflated prices for customers, illustrating why rolling back electricity prices is often more complex than it appears for customers across various sectors, from construction to manufacturing.

The Fines Imposed

Following the conclusion of the investigation, the fines levied against the companies were substantial. Schneider Electric faced the largest penalty, receiving a fine of €220 million, while Legrand was fined €150 million. Rexel and Sonepar were each fined €70 million and €50 million, respectively. These financial penalties serve as a deterrent to other companies that might consider engaging in similar practices, reinforcing the message that anti-competitive behavior will not be tolerated.

The fines are particularly significant given the size and influence of these companies within the electrical equipment market. Their combined revenues amount to billions of euros annually, making the repercussions of their actions far-reaching. As major players in the industry, their pricing strategies have a direct impact on numerous sectors, from residential construction to large-scale industrial projects.

Industry Reactions

The response from the affected companies has varied. Schneider Electric expressed its commitment to compliance and transparency, acknowledging the importance of adhering to competition laws, amid ongoing EU electricity reform debates that influence market expectations.

Legrand also emphasized its commitment to fair competition, noting that it has taken steps to enhance its compliance framework in response to the investigation. Rexel and Sonepar similarly reaffirmed their dedication to ethical business practices and their intention to cooperate with regulators in the future.

Industry experts have pointed out that these fines, while significant, may not be enough to deter large corporations from engaging in similar behavior unless accompanied by a broader cultural shift within the industry. There is a growing call for enhanced oversight and stricter penalties to ensure that companies prioritize ethical conduct over short-term profits.

Implications for the Market

The fines imposed on Schneider, Legrand, Rexel, and Sonepar could have broader implications for the electrical equipment market and beyond. They signal to other companies within the sector that regulatory bodies are vigilant, even as nine EU countries oppose electricity market reforms proposed as fixes for price spikes, and willing to take decisive action against anti-competitive practices. This could foster a more competitive environment, ultimately benefiting consumers through better prices and enhanced product offerings.

Moreover, the case highlights the importance of regulatory bodies in maintaining fair market conditions. As industries evolve, ongoing vigilance from competition authorities will be necessary to prevent similar instances of collusion and ensure that markets remain competitive and innovative, as seen when New York opened a formal review of retail energy markets.

The recent fines imposed on Schneider Electric, Legrand, Rexel, and Sonepar mark a significant moment in France's ongoing battle against corporate price-fixing and anti-competitive practices, occurring as the government and EDF reached a deal on electricity prices to balance market pressures. With total penalties exceeding €500 million, the investigation underscores the commitment of French authorities to uphold market integrity and protect consumer interests.

As the industry reflects on these developments, it remains crucial for companies to prioritize compliance and ethical business practices. The ultimate goal is to create an environment where competition thrives, innovation flourishes, and consumers benefit from fair pricing. This case serves as a reminder that transparency and accountability are vital in maintaining the health of any market, particularly one as essential as the electrical equipment sector.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

UK Free Electricity Debate weighs soaring energy prices against market regulation, renewables, and social equity, examining price caps, funding via windfall taxes, grid investment, and consumer protection in the UK's evolving energy policy landscape.

Key Points

A policy dispute over free power, balancing consumer relief with market stability, renewables, and investment.

✅ Pros: relief for households; boosts efficiency and green adoption.

✅ Cons: risks to market signals, quality, and grid investment.

✅ Policy options: price caps, windfall taxes, targeted subsidies.

In recent months, the debate over free electricity in the UK has intensified, revealing a divide within the energy sector. With soaring energy prices and economic pressures impacting consumers, the discussion around providing free electricity has gained traction. However, the idea has sparked significant controversy among industry stakeholders, each with their own perspectives on the feasibility and implications of such a move.

The Context of Rising Energy Costs

The push for free electricity is rooted in the UK’s ongoing energy crisis, exacerbated by geopolitical tensions, supply chain disruptions, and the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. As energy prices reached unprecedented levels, households faced the harsh reality of skyrocketing bills, prompting calls for government intervention to alleviate financial burdens.

Supporters of free electricity argue that it could serve as a vital lifeline for struggling families and businesses. The proposal suggests that by providing a certain amount of electricity for free, the government could help mitigate the effects of rising costs while encouraging energy conservation and efficiency.

Industry Perspectives

However, the notion of free electricity has not been universally embraced within the energy sector. Some industry leaders express concerns about the financial viability of such a scheme. They argue that providing free electricity could undermine the market dynamics that incentivize investment in infrastructure and renewable energy, in a market already exposed to natural gas price volatility today. Critics warn that if energy companies are forced to absorb costs, it could lead to diminished service quality and investment in necessary advancements.

Additionally, there are worries about how free electricity could be funded. Proponents suggest that a tax on energy companies could generate the necessary revenue, but opponents question whether this would stifle innovation and competition. The fear is that placing additional financial burdens on energy providers could ultimately lead to higher prices in the long run.

Renewable Energy and Sustainability

Another aspect of the debate centers around the UK’s commitment to transitioning to renewable energy sources. Supporters of free electricity emphasize that such a policy could encourage more widespread adoption of green technologies by making energy more accessible. They argue that by removing the financial barriers associated with energy costs, households would be more inclined to invest in solar panels, heat pumps, and other sustainable solutions.

On the other hand, skeptics contend that the focus should remain on ensuring a stable and reliable energy supply as the UK moves toward its climate goals. They caution against implementing policies that might disrupt the balance of the energy market, potentially hindering the necessary investments in renewable infrastructure.

Government's Role

As discussions unfold, the government’s role in this debate is crucial. Policymakers must navigate the complex landscape of energy regulation, market dynamics, and consumer needs. The government has already introduced measures aimed at assisting vulnerable households, such as energy price caps and direct financial support. However, the question remains whether these initiatives go far enough in addressing the root causes of the energy crisis.

In this context, the government faces pressure from both consumers demanding relief and industry leaders advocating for market stability, including proposals to end the link between gas and electricity prices to curb price volatility. The challenge lies in finding a middle ground that balances immediate support for households with long-term sustainability and investment in the energy sector.

Future Implications

The ongoing debate about free electricity in the UK underscores broader themes related to energy policy, market regulation, and social equity, with rising electricity prices abroad offering context for comparison. As the country navigates its energy transition, the decisions made today will have far-reaching implications for both consumers and the industry.

If the government chooses to pursue a model that includes free electricity, it will need to carefully consider how to implement such a system without jeopardizing the market. Transparency, stakeholder engagement, and thorough impact assessments will be essential to ensure that any new policies are sustainable and equitable.

Conversely, if the concept of free electricity is ultimately rejected, the focus will likely shift back to addressing energy costs through other means, such as enhancing energy efficiency programs or increasing support for vulnerable populations.

The divide within the UK’s energy industry regarding free electricity highlights the complexities of balancing consumer needs with market stability. As the energy crisis continues to unfold, the conversations surrounding this issue will remain at the forefront of public discourse. Ultimately, finding a solution that addresses the immediate challenges while promoting a sustainable energy future will be key to navigating this critical juncture in the UK’s energy landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News