Vietnam Redefines Offshore Wind Power Regulations

PG&E Wildfire Blackouts highlight California power shutoffs as high winds and suspected transmission line faults trigger evacuations, CPUC investigations, and grid safety reviews, with utilities weighing risk, compliance, and resilience during Santa Ana conditions.

Key Points

PG&E Wildfire Blackouts are outages during wind-driven fire threats linked to power lines, spurring CPUC investigations.

✅ Wind and line faults suspected amid Lafayette evacuations

✅ CPUC to probe shutoffs, notifications, and compliance

✅ Utilities plan more outages as Santa Ana winds return

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. power lines may have started two wildfires over the weekend in the San Francisco Bay Area, the utility said Monday, even though widespread blackouts were in place to prevent downed lines from starting fires during dangerously windy weather.

The fires described in PG&E reports to state regulators match blazes that destroyed a tennis club and forced evacuations in Lafayette, about 20 miles (32 kilometres) east of San Francisco.

The fires began in a section of town where PG&E had opted to keep the lights on. The sites were not designated as a high fire risk, the company said.

Powerful winds were driving multiple fires across California and forcing power shut-offs intended to prevent blazes, even as electricity prices are soaring across the state as well.

More than 900,000 power customers -- an estimated 2.5 million people -- were in the dark at the height of the latest planned blackout, nearly all of them in PG&E's territory in Northern and central California. By Monday evening a little less than half of those had their service back. But some 1.5 million people in 29 counties will be hit with more shut-offs starting Tuesday because another round of strong winds is expected, a reminder of grid stress during heat waves that test capacity, the utility said.

Southern California Edison had cut off power to 25,000 customers and warned that it was considering disconnecting about 350,000 more as power supply lapses and Santa Ana winds return midweek.

PG&E is under severe financial pressure after its equipment was blamed for a series of destructive wildfires and its 2018 Camp Fire guilty plea compounded liabilities during the past three years. Its stock dropped 24% Monday to close at $3.80 and was down more than 50% since Thursday.

The company reported last week that a transmission tower may have caused a Sonoma County fire that has forced 156,000 people to evacuate.

PG&E told the California Public Utilities Commission that a worker responded to a fire in Lafayette late Sunday afternoon and was told firefighters believed contact between a power line and a communication line may have caused it.

A worker went to another fire about an hour later and saw a fallen pole and transformer. Contra Costa Fire Department personnel on site told the worker they were looking at the transformer as a potential ignition source, a company official wrote.

Separately, the company told regulators that it had failed to notify 23,000 customers, including 500 with medical conditions, before shutting off their power earlier this month during windy weather.

Before a planned blackout, power companies are required to notify customers and take extra care to get in touch with those with medical problems who may not be able to handle extended periods without air conditioning or may need power to run medical devices.

PG&E said some customers had no contact information on file. Others were incorrectly thought to be getting electricity.

After that outage, workers discovered 43 cases of wind-related damage to power lines, transformers and other equipment.

Jennifer Robison, a PG&E spokeswoman, said the company is working with independent living centres to determine how best to serve people with disabilities.

The company faced a growing backlash from regulators and lawmakers, and a judge's order on wildfire risk spending added pressure as well.

U.S. Rep. Josh Harder, a Democrat from Modesto, said he plans to introduce legislation that would raise PG&E's taxes if it pays bonuses to executives while engaging in blackouts.

The Public Utilities Commission plans to open a formal investigation into the blackouts and the broader climate policy debate surrounding reliability within the next month, allowing regulators to gather evidence and question utility officials. If rules are found to be broken, they can impose fines up to $100,000 per violation per day, said Terrie Prosper, a spokeswoman for the commission.

The commission said Monday it also plans to review the rules governing blackouts, will look to prevent utilities from charging customers when the power is off and will convene experts to find grid improvements that might lessen blackouts during next year's fire season, as debates over rate stability in 2025 continue across PG&E's service area.

The state can't continue experiencing such widespread blackouts, "nor should Californians be subject to the poor execution that PG&E in particular has exhibited," Marybel Batjer, president of the California Public Utilities Commission, said in a statement.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Futaba Partial Reopening marks limited access to the Fukushima exclusion zone, highlighting radiation decontamination progress, the train station restart, and regional recovery ahead of the Tokyo Olympics after the 2011 nuclear disaster and evacuation.

Key Points

A lift of entry bans in Futaba, signaling Fukushima recovery, decontamination progress, and a train station restart.

✅ Unrestricted access to 2.4 km² around Futaba Station

✅ Symbolic step ahead of Tokyo Olympics torch relay

✅ Decommissioning and decontamination to span decades

Japan's government on Wednesday opened part of the last town that had been off-limits due to radiation since the Fukushima nuclear disaster nine years ago, in a symbolic move to show the region's recovery ahead of the Tokyo Olympics, even as grid blackout risks have drawn scrutiny nationwide.

The entire population of 7,000 was forced to evacuate Futaba after three reactors melted down due to damage at the town's nuclear plant caused by a magnitude 9. 0 quake and tsunami March 11, 2011.

The partial lifting of the entry ban comes weeks before the Olympic torch starts from another town in Fukushima, as new energy projects like a large hydrogen system move forward in the prefecture. The torch could also arrive in Futaba, about 4 kilometres (2.4 miles) from the wrecked nuclear plant.

Unrestricted access, however, is only being allowed to a 2.4 square-kilometre (less than 1 square-mile) area near the main Futaba train station, which will reopen later this month to reconnect it with the rest of the region for the first time since the accident. The vast majority of Futaba is restricted to those who get permission for a day visit.

The three reactor meltdowns at the town's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant spewed massive amounts of radiation that contaminated the surrounding area and at its peak, forced more than 160,000 people to flee, even as regulators later granted TEPCO restart approval for a separate Niigata plant elsewhere in Japan.

The gate at a checkpoint was opened at midnight Tuesday, and Futaba officials placed a signboard at their new town office, at a time when the shutdown of Germany's last reactors has reshaped energy debates abroad.

“I'm overwhelmed with emotion as we finally bring part of our town operations back to our home town," said Futaba Mayor Shiro Izawa. “I pledge to steadily push forward our recovery and reconstruction."

Town officials say they hope to see Futaba’s former residents return, but prospects are grim because of lingering concern about radiation, and as Germany's nuclear exit underscores shifting policies abroad. Many residents also found new jobs and ties to communities after evacuating, and only about 10% say they plan to return.

Futaba's registered residents already has decreased by 1,000 from its pre-disaster population of 7,000. Many evacuees ended up in Kazo City, north of Tokyo, after long bus trips, various stopovers and stays in shelters at an athletic arena and an abandoned high school. The town's government reopened in a makeshift office in another Fukushima town of Iwaki, while abroad projects like the Bruce reactor refurbishment illustrate long-term nuclear maintenance efforts.

Even after radiation levels declined to safe levels, the region's farming and fishing are hurt by lingering concerns among consumers and retailers. The nuclear plant is being decommission in a process that will take decades, with spent fuel removal delays extending timelines, and it is building temporary storage for massive amounts of debris and soil from ongoing decontamination efforts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Trump Offshore Wind Pledge signals a push for deregulation over renewable energy, challenging climate policy, green jobs, and coastal development while citing marine ecosystems, navigation, and energy independence amid state-federal permitting and legal hurdles.

Key Points

Trump's vow to cancel offshore wind projects favors deregulation and fossil fuels, impacting climate policy and jobs.

✅ Day-one plan to scrap offshore wind leases and permits

✅ Risks to renewable targets, grid mix, and coastal supply chains

✅ Likely court fights and state-federal regulatory conflicts

During his tenure as President of the United States, Donald Trump made numerous promises and policy proposals, many of which sparked controversy and debate. One such pledge was his vow to scrap offshore wind projects on "day one" of his presidency. This bold statement, while appealing to certain interests, raised concerns about its potential impact on U.S. offshore wind growth and environmental conservation efforts.

Trump's opposition to offshore wind projects stemmed from various factors, including his skepticism towards renewable energy, even as forecasts point to a $1 trillion offshore wind market in coming years, concerns about aesthetics and property values, and his focus on promoting traditional energy sources like coal and oil. Throughout his presidency, Trump prioritized deregulation and sought to roll back environmental policies introduced by previous administrations, arguing that they stifled economic growth and hindered American energy independence.

The prospect of scrapping offshore wind projects drew mixed reactions from different stakeholders. Supporters of Trump's proposal pointed to potential benefits such as preserving scenic coastal landscapes, protecting marine ecosystems, and addressing concerns about navigational safety and national security. Critics, however, raised valid concerns about the implications of such a decision on the renewable energy sector, including progress toward getting 1 GW on the grid nationwide, climate change mitigation efforts, and job creation in the burgeoning green economy.

Offshore wind energy has emerged as a promising source of clean, renewable power with the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and diversify the energy mix. Countries like Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Germany have made significant investments in offshore wind in Europe, demonstrating its viability as a sustainable energy solution. In the United States, offshore wind projects have gained traction in states like Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey, where coastal conditions are conducive to wind energy generation.

Trump's pledge to scrap offshore wind projects on "day one" of his presidency raised questions about the feasibility and legality of such a move. While the president has authority over certain aspects of energy policy and regulatory oversight, the development of offshore wind projects often involves multiple stakeholders, including state governments, local communities, private developers, and federal agencies, and actions such as Interior's move on Vineyard Wind illustrate federal leverage in permitting. Any attempt to halt or reverse ongoing projects would likely face legal challenges and regulatory hurdles, potentially delaying or derailing implementation.

Moreover, Trump's stance on offshore wind projects reflected broader debates about the future of energy policy, environmental protection, and economic development. While some argued for prioritizing fossil fuel extraction and traditional energy infrastructure, others advocated for a transition towards clean, renewable energy sources, drawing on lessons from the U.K. about wind deployment, to mitigate climate change and promote sustainable development. The Biden administration, which succeeded the Trump presidency, has signaled a shift towards a more climate-conscious agenda, including support for renewable energy initiatives and commitments to rejoin international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord.

In hindsight, Trump's pledge to scrap offshore wind projects on "day one" of his presidency underscores the complexities of energy policy and the importance of balancing competing interests and priorities. While concerns about aesthetics, property values, and environmental impact are valid, addressing the urgent challenge of climate change requires bold action and innovation in the energy sector. Offshore wind energy presents an opportunity, as seen in the country's biggest offshore wind farm approved in New York, to harness the power of nature in a way that is both environmentally responsible and economically beneficial. As the United States navigates its energy future, finding common ground and forging partnerships will be essential to ensure a sustainable and prosperous tomorrow.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

OEB Hydro One Rate Decision 2023-2027 sets approved transmission and distribution rates in Ontario, with a settlement reducing revenue requirement, modest bill impacts, higher productivity factors, inflation certainty, DVA credits, and First Nations participation measures.

Key Points

OEB-approved Hydro One 2023-2027 transmission and distribution rates settlement, lowering costs and limiting bill impacts.

✅ $482.7M revenue reductions vs. original proposal

✅ Avg bill impact: +$0.69 trans., +$2.43 distr. per month

✅ Faster DVA refunds; productivity and efficiency incentives

The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) issued its Decision and Order on an application filed by Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One) on August 5, 2021 seeking approval for changes to the rates it charges for electricity transmission and distribution, beginning January 1, 2023 and for each subsequent year through to December 31, 2027. 

The proceeding resulted in the filing of a settlement proposal that the OEB has now approved after concluding that it is in the public interest. 

The negotiated reductions in Hydro One's transmission and distribution revenue requirements over the 2023 to 2027 period total $482.7 million compared to the requests made by Hydro One in its application.

The OEB found that the reductions in Hydro One's proposed capital expenditure and operating, maintenance and administration costs were reasonable, and should not compromise the safety and reliability of Hydro One's transmission and distribution systems. It also concluded that the estimated bill impacts for both transmission and distribution customers are reasonable, and that the January 1, 2023 implementation and effective date of the new rates is appropriate.

In the broader Canadian context, pressures on utility finances at other companies, such as Manitoba Hydro's debt provide additional background for stakeholders.

Bill Impacts

This proceeding related to both transmission and distribution operations.

Transmission

The new transmission revenue requirement will affect Ontario electricity consumers across the province because it will be incorporated into updated transmission rates, which are paid by electricity distributors and other large consumers connected directly to the transmission system, and distributors then pass this cost on to their customers.

As a result of the settlement approved on the transmission portion of the application, it is estimated that for a typical Hydro One residential customer with a monthly consumption of 750 kWh, the total bill impact averaged over the 2023-2027 period will be an increase of $0.69 per month or 0.5%, which follows the 2021 electricity rate reductions that affected many businesses.

Distribution

The new OEB-approved distribution rates will affect Hydro One's distribution customers, including areas served through acquisitions such as the Peterborough Distribution sale which expanded its customer base.

As a result of the settlement reached on the distribution portion of the application, it is estimated that for a typical residential distribution customer of Hydro One with a monthly consumption of 750 kWh, the total bill impact averaged over the 2023-2027 period will be an increase of $2.43 per month or 1.5%.
This proceeding included 24 approved intervenors representing a wide variety of customer classes and other interests. Representatives of 18 of those intervenors participated in the settlement conference. Having this diversity of perspective enriches the already thorough examination of evidence and argument that the OEB routinely undertakes when considering an application.

Other features of the settlement proposal include:

• A commitment by Hydro One to include, in future operational and capital investment plans, a discussion of how the proposed spending will directly support the achievement of Hydro One's climate change policy.
• Eliminating further updates to reflect changes to inflation in 2022 and 2023 as originally proposed, to provide Hydro One's customers with greater certainty as to the potential impacts of inflation on their bills.
• Increases in the productivity factors and supplemental stretch factors for both the distribution and transmission business segments which will provide Hydro One with additional incentives to achieve greater efficiencies during the 2023 to 2027 period.
• Undertaking certain measures to seek economic participation or equity investment opportunities from First Nations.
• Disposition of net credit balances in deferral and variance accounts (DVAs) owed to customers will be returned over a shorter period of time:
• Transmission DVA – $22.5M over a one-year period in 2023 (versus five years)
• Distribution DVA – $85.9M over a three-year period – 2023-2025 (versus five years)
• Undertaking certain measures to continue examining cost-effective transmission and distribution line losses
• In the decision, the OEB acknowledged the efforts involved by parties to participate in this entire proceeding, including the settlement conference, considering the number of participants, the complexity of the issues, and the challenging logistics of a "virtual" proceeding. The OEB commended the parties and OEB staff for achieving a comprehensive settlement on all issues.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Summer Power Grid Reliability and Climate Risk drives urgent planning as extreme heat, peak demand, drought, and aging infrastructure strain ERCOT, NERC regions, risking outages without renewables integration and climate-informed grid modeling.

Key Points

Assessment of how extreme weather and demand stress the US grid, informing climate-smart planning to reduce outages.

✅ Many operators rely on historical weather, not climate projections

✅ NERC flags elevated blackout risk amid extreme heat and drought

✅ Renewables and storage can boost capacity and cut emissions

As heat ramps up ahead of what forecasters say will be a hotter than normal summer, electricity experts and officials are warning that states may not have enough power to meet demand in the coming months. And many of the nation's grid operators are also not taking climate change into account in their planning, despite available grid resilience guidance that could inform upgrades, even as extreme weather becomes more frequent and more severe.

Power operators in the Central US, in their summer readiness report, have already predicted "insufficient firm resources to cover summer peak forecasts." That assessment accounted for historical weather and the latest NOAA outlook that projects for more extreme weather this summer.

But energy experts say that some power grid operators are not considering how the climate crisis is changing our weather — including more frequent extreme events — and that is a problem if the intent is to build a reliable power grid while accelerating investing in carbon-free electricity across markets.

"The reality is the electricity system is old and a lot of the infrastructure was built before we started thinking about climate change," said Romany Webb, a researcher at Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. "It's not designed to withstand the impacts of climate change."

Webb says many power grid operators use historical weather to make investment decisions, rather than the more dire climate projections, simply because they want to avoid the possibility of financial loss, even as climate-related credit risks for nuclear plants are being flagged, for investing in what might happen versus what has already happened. She said it's the wrong approach and it makes the grid vulnerable.

"We have seen a reluctance on the part of many utilities to factor climate change into their planning processes because they say the science around climate change is too uncertain," Webb said. "The reality is we know climate change is happening, we know the impact it has in terms of more severe heatwaves, hurricanes, drought, with recent hydropower constraints in British Columbia illustrating the risks, and we know that all of those things affect the electricity system so ignoring those impacts just makes the problems worse."

An early heatwave knocked six power plants offline in Texas earlier this month. Residents were asked to limit electricity use, keeping thermostats at 78 degrees or higher and, as extreme heat boosts electricity bills for consumers, avoid using large appliances at peak times. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, in its seasonal reliability report, said the state's power grid is prepared for the summer and has "sufficient" power for "normal" summer conditions, based on average weather from 2006 to 2020.

But NOAA's recently released summer outlook forecasts above average temperatures for every county in the nation.

"We are continuing to design and site facilities based on historical weather patterns that we know in the age of climate change are not a good proxy for future conditions," Webb said.

When asked if the agency is creating a blind spot for itself by not accounting for extreme weather predictions, an ERCOT spokesperson said the report "uses a scenario approach to illustrate a range of resource adequacy outcomes based on extreme system conditions, including some extreme weather scenarios."

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation, or NERC — a regulating authority that oversees the health of the nation's electrical infrastructure — has a less optimistic projection.

In a recent seasonal reliability report, NERC placed Texas at "elevated risk" for blackouts this summer. It also reported that while much of the nation will have adequate electricity this summer, several markets are at risk of energy emergencies.

California grid operators, who recently avoided widespread rolling blackouts as heat strained the grid, in its summer reliability report also based its readiness analysis on "the most recent 20 years of historical weather data." The report also notes the assessment "does not fully reflect more extreme climate induced load and supply uncertainties."

Compounding the US power grid's supply and demand problem is drought: NERC says there's been a 2% loss of reliable hydropower from the nation's power-producing dams. Add to that the rapid retirement of many coal power plants — all while nearly everything from toothbrushes to cars are now electrified. Energy experts say adding more renewables into the mix will have the dual impact of cutting climate change inducing greenhouse gas emissions but also increasing the nation's power supply, aligning with efforts such as California's 100% carbon-free mandate that aim to speed the transition.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News