Wind waste should worry Ontario ratepayers

Ontario’s electricity ratepayers paid more than $500 million in 2017 for nothing

With only one month left in the current year, the bad news on the electricity sector keeps getting worse.

Well before the official sources such as IESO report on how much power industrial wind turbines generated and how much was curtailed (constrained, or paid for but not added to the power grid), my friend Scott Luft has published his estimates for both the former and the latter for the month of November.

As he reports (conservatively), curtailed wind in November was over 422,000 megawatt hours (MWh)  that could have supplied 562,000 average Ontario households with free power for the month.

Instead, no one got free power; the cost of the 422,000 MWh of undelivered wind power to Ontario ratepayers was $120/MWh.  That $50.7-million cost for the month was simply added to the costs of the electricity bills ratepayers will be obliged to pay, while some of it will deferred to the future as part of the Fair Hydro Plan.

Somebody’s enjoying cheap power — not you  

No doubt the wasted wind power presented itself when it wasn’t needed; if it had been accepted into the grid, that extra power could have caused blackouts or brownouts, so it was curtailed.  At the same time, much of the grid-accepted wind was exported to our neighbours in New York, Michigan and elsewhere, at discount prices!  Curtailed wind for November 2017 compared to 2016 was almost 55% higher.

How bad is it? Let’s review the first 11 months of the current year, compared to 2016.

So far in 2017, curtailed wind is about 786,000 MWh higher (+33.8%) at just over 3.1million MWh.  The cost of all the curtailed wind so far in 2017 is approximately $373.6 million, or $94.3 million more than 2016 costs.

And wind wasn’t the only source of power generation constrained. When Ontario Power Group reported their third Quarter (September 30, 2017) results they said this:

“Baseload generation supply surplus in Ontario continued to be prevalent in 2017, resulting in forgone hydroelectric generation for OPG of 1.1 TWh*: and 4.5 TWh in the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2017, respectively, compared to 0.5 TWh and 3.9 TWh during the corresponding periods in 2016.”  

Translation: ratepayers will pick up the approximately $165 million cost of that waste via their electricity bills.

Not only are we curtailing wind and spilling hydro, but we also steamed off nuclear power generated by Bruce Nuclear at the same time we pay for idling gas plants to back up intermittent wind and solar power generation.

Intermittent wind and solar cost us

The cost of “greening” Ontario with unreliable and intermittent wind and solar keeps climbing, no matter what their proponents or politicians say.  As ratepayers and taxpayers we should reflect on why 25% of the waste of the noted 7.6 TWh of undelivered power and its cost of $539 million (so far this year) is being deferred via the Fair Hydro Plan.  And at the same time, we should recognize that we have experienced the worst possible planning in the Energy Ministry in the history of the province.

The energy sector in Ontario needs real planning by experts that will provide real value for money and save ratepayers from paying more than $500 million a year … for nothing!

~

*  1 (one) terawatt is equivalent to 1 billion kWh

Advertisements

Wind power peaks match power use lows

Once again, the numbers show: wind power shows up when it’s not needed, adding to consumers’ electricity bills

The IESO/Independent Electricity System Operator just released their October 2017 Monthly Market Report.

As usual, it was full of bad news.

Ontario power consumption was down 2.6% from October 2016 and was the third lowest consumption month of the 10 so far in 2017.

October 2017 was also the fourth highest month for curtailed wind* in 2017 with 37.9% (481,243MWh [megawatt hours]) curtailed, compared to May’s record curtailment of 49.3%, April’s of 42.6% and June’s curtailment of 38.1%.  History has shown wind’s generation levels in Ontario tend to always be higher in the Spring and Fall months, so this was no surprise.  What it does underscore, again, is that the months of lowest power consumption line up with wind power’s best days on the job. Power when its not needed!  Curtailment of wind in October cost Ontario ratepayers about $58 million.

On top of the wind power curtailment, Ontario also was busy exporting surplus power to our neighbours in New York, Michigan, etc. providing them with cheap power subsidized by the ratepayers of Ontario.  Net exports (exports minus imports) averaged 1,438 MW per hour so 1,069,872 MWh were delivered elsewhere.  Based on the record Global Adjustment (GA) for the month of $125.63 and the very low HOEP (hourly Ontario electricity price) of $8.75 MWh (0.088 cents.kWh) the cost to Ontario ratepayers; after recovery of the HOEP, transmission and congestion charges was approximately $107 million.

In summary, Ontario ratepayers picked up costs of curtailed wind of $58 million plus lost revenue from exports of $107 million for 1,550,000 MWh (rounded) generation of no value to them.  Those 1,550,000 MWh were enough power to have supplied 172,000 average households with power for a full year or almost 2.1 million average households with power for the full month of October.

No doubt we also spilled cheap clean hydro and steamed off emissions free nuclear while paying for idling gas plants, at the ready; to ensure power when clouds passed over solar panels and the wind refused to blow.

This all adds up to very Un-Fair Hydro Plan!

Parker Gallant

November 23, 2017

Note: “constrained” means the power was not needed so not added to the grid … but paid for anyway.

* Thanks to Scott Luft for his invaluable data!

Wind: worst value for Ontario consumers

The wind power lobby continues to claim power from wind is great value and contributes to “affordable” electricity bills. But the facts of October tell a different story.

Ontario turbines near Comber: not helping

Right after Ontario Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault released his version of the LTEP (Long-Term Energy Plan), “Delivering Fairness and Choice,” CanWEA (the Canadian Wind Energy Association) issued a news release with the following statement:  “New wind energy provides the best value for consumers to meet growing demand for affordable non-emitting electricity.”

To back up that claim, CanWEA president Robert Hornung had this to say: Ontario’s harnessing of wind power can help fight climate change while keeping electricity costs low. Without new wind energy, costs to electricity customers and carbon emissions will both continue to rise.”

Brandy Giannetta, CanWEA’s Regional Director for Ontario also had a quote: “CanWEA supports competitive, market-based approaches to providing flexible, clean, and low-cost energy supply, to meet Ontarians’ changing needs.”

The expression “I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard that,” immediately comes to mind but here’s the truth: industrial-scale wind turbines have failed miserably in producing anything resembling “low-cost” energy and is instead one of the reasons consumers’ electricity bills “will continue to rise”!

If Hornung and Giannetta had waited just five days, they could have visited my friend Scott Luft’s spreadsheet and noticed how wind performed in October.   They would have discovered it was pretty dismal: 37.9% of possible grid-connected (Tx) wind power generation was curtailed (paid for but not used).  

The IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) was concerned that too much wind power generation could cause repercussions such as a blackout or brownout, so 481,243 MWh (megawatt hours) were not accepted throughout the month. However, Ontario’s ratepayers will still pay for those undelivered MWh at a cost of $120 each, meaning the GA (global adjustment) increased by $57.7 million (481,243 MWh X $120. = $ $57,749,160).

Add that $57.7 million to the 787,627 MWh of the Tx  generation accepted into the grid, the total costs rise to $165 million or $208.32/MWh — the equivalent of 20.8 cents/kWh (kilowatt hour).   (That calculation is 787,627 X $135/MWh = $106,329,645 + $57,749,160 = $164,978,805.  Simply divide the latter amount by the Tx accepted generation and you get the $208.32 MWh or the 20.8 cents/kWh.)

It is important to note that the costs calculated and reported here do not include the transmission charge, delivery charge, regulatory charge or the HST.  Additionally, another 158,609 MWh of wind were delivered to local distribution companies (Dx) at a cost of $135/MWh, bringing IWT costs for the month to $185 million — for power we didn’t need.  No doubt during the month we were also steaming off clean nuclear power from Bruce Nuclear and spilling clean hydro power from OPG’s hydro generation units. In both cases the cost of the steamed off nuclear and the spilled hydro will be added to the Global Adjustment pot and find its way to our future bills.

I hope Mr. Hornung and Ms Giannetta will rethink their claims and simply admit wind power generation is high-cost, and frequently displaces low-cost non-emitting nuclear and hydro power.

You can’t hide October’s facts!

 

Ontario’s fond hopes for wind power dashed by reality

Ontario’s energy minister will likely crow about the $146 million in revenue from selling surplus power recently … too bad it cost consumers $892 million

 If you visit the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) website, the first page has the message:  “Wind is delivering clean, reliable and low-cost electricity”.  Anyone following my recent postings on how wind has either delivered almost no power or way too much, may have a different view.  You can also find this homily in the Energy Ministry’s just released 2017 Long-Term Electricity Plan, Delivering Fairness and Choice: “Wind power is also being produced more efficiently,” which distorts the truth!

Recent facts:

One day of wind power

Tuesday October 24, 2017 was a day when the wind was blowing strongly for 24 hours. IESO had forecast the approximately 4,220 MW of Tx (transmission-connected) capacity could have delivered 88,200 MWh of generation, meaning they would operate at over 86% of capacity.  Using that capacity value for the 580 MW of Dx (distributor-connected) turbines, another 12,080 MW were no doubt being generated at the same time — that meant almost 30% of Ontario’s total demand could have been supplied by wind.

As it stands, however, Ontario’s demand suggested we didn’t need all that power so IESO directed Tx connected turbine generators to curtail over 52,000 MWh. So, that same day, Ontario exported 40,300 MWh of free power to New York and Michigan, 11,700 MWh less than IESO curtailed.

The delivered and curtailed (paid for but not delivered) wind power on October 24th that wasn’t needed cost Ontario ratepayers $13.5 million or $280.60/MWh (28.1 cents/kWh).  If that happened every day the annual cost to Ontario’s ratepayers would be in excess of $5 billion.

Nine months of wind power

Let’s look at the nine months starting January 1, 2017 to the end of September and see what wind has contributed — and cost — Ontario ratepayers.  In the first nine months of 2017, industrial wind turbines could have produced about 9,820,000 megawatt hours (MWh) from Tx and Dx connected capacity — if curtailed generation was included! IESO however, forced curtailment of over 2,209,000* megawatt hours (MWh) or 22.5% of forecast generation to avoid compromising our grid and causing blackouts or brownouts.  Ontario ratepayers picked up the cost of curtailed power at $120 per/MWh costing them more than $265 million. The grid-accepted wind (7,620,395 MWh) cost; at $135/MWh added to the cost of curtailed wind brought the cost to ratepayers to almost $1.3 billion and more than $170/MWh (17cents/kWh). We would note when wind generation is high, IESO frequently instructs OPG to “spill water” and Bruce Nuclear to “steam off” power. Ratepayers also pick up those costs.

Nine months of (net) exports

From January 1, 2017 to September 30, 2017, Ontario’s net exports (exports minus imports) were 9,058,008 MWh. Those net exports were sold at somewhere close to the HOEP or hourly Ontario electricity price which to the end of September averaged $16.15MWh, so net exports sales generated about $146 million in revenue.  The sale price does not include the GA or Global Adjustment (the difference between contracted or regulated rates and the HOEP), meaning Ontario’s ratepayers picked up the average GA costs to the end of September.  The GA averaged $98.48/MWh for the first nine months of the current year, so the 9,058,008 MWh of net exports cost Ontario’s ratepayers just over $892 million dollars!   That is the equivalent of almost $200 per average residential ratepayer.

And the year isn’t over.

To put those net exports in context, Ontario’s net exports represented slightly over 92% of both the curtailed and delivered wind generation in the first nine months of the year, yet we were burdened with the cost of $892 million dollars for them, along with the costs of wind curtailment of $265 million.

The foregoing makes CanWEA’s claim of “low-cost electricity” and the Energy Ministry’s comments about wind power “being produced more efficiently” look to be simply fond hopes!

 

 

* My thanks to Scott Luft for his ability to generate reliable wind data using IESO’s files.

Hydro One and the OEB Yearbook: more fun with figures

The OEB’s just released Yearbook results in questions about the “facts”

Utility performance and monitoring

Photo: Ontario Energy Board

Since embarking on my objective look at the Ontario electricity sector several years ago, one of the events I look forward to is the posting of the Yearbook of Distributors on the OEB’s (Ontario Energy Board) website.  In the current edition (2016) of the Yearbook’s 142 pages you can find almost everything you could think of in respect to information of interest on the 73 LDCs (local distribution companies) that were operating in the province.  From the largest LDCs (Hydro One, Toronto Hydro, etc.) to the smallest (Chapleau PUC, Hydro 2000, etc.) the information is vast!

The filing for the year ended December 31, 2016 was published August 17, 2017. This year’s report raised issues as some of the format had changed and past information (back as far as 2012) had been amended. Those amendments applied mainly to prior reports of Hydro One.

Hydro One: increased Ontario Coverage?

An oddity I missed in reviewing the 2015 Yearbook related to “Rural Service Area” for Hydro One but thankfully, in an exchange with my friend Scott Luft, he pointed out to me their service area had jumped from 2014 to 2015 by over 310,000 sq. km from 650,000 sq km to 961,123 sq. km.  While 677 sq. km were “urban,”* the balance were rural.  What that suggests is that Hydro One’s distribution coverage of the province supposedly jumped from 65% of the total area of Ontario to over 96% of the geographic area of the province.   If one goes to the Hydro One website however they claim “We distribute electricity to over 1.3 million residential and business customers covering approximately 75 per cent of the geographic area of Ontario.” A query to Hydro One about the big jump in coverage to Hydro One made over a month ago remains unanswered!  It would appear that despite a “certified for completeness and accuracy” sign-off by a Hydro One “executive signing officer” (the OEB told me all LDCs must sign off), when the information was submitted to the OEB certain information may not be accurate!  The foregoing will probably remind people of Hydro One’s claim of “billing accuracy” a few years ago.

So, what is Hydro One’s actual Ontario coverage?

Hydro One and the missing kilowatts

One of the principal amendments was in respect to “Total kWh Supplied” (including line losses) which jumped by 8.4% (10,464,000 MWh/megawatt hours) from 2015 to 2016, or enough to supply 1.2 million average households.

When I queried the OEB about the jump I was provided with the answer that Hydro One’s “metric on page 3 has been updated to reflect Hydro One’s 2012 to 2015 data revisions for kWh delivered to all customers” and was described under “note iii on page 3 of the Yearbook.”   Note iii stated, “This metric represents the total kWh of electricity delivered to all customers in the distributor’s licensed service area and to any embedded distributors. Past figures have been updated to reflect distributor data revisions.” It appears to have only applied to Hydro One! So how could the OEB and the distributor (Hydro One) miss reporting on such a significant amount of kWh supplied to their customers? This issue is still being explored with the OEB! On page 69 of the Yearbook Hydro One reports 36,122,262,456 kWh were supplied to its customers.   On page 81 (a new section) where they report the kWh delivered to “Residential Customers,” “General Service Customers” (large and small) and “Sub Transmission Customers” (“embedded distributors” referenced in the OEB’s response) and “Large Users” generally referred to as Class A (Hydro One claim zero Class A customers) they report only 21,444,528,579 kWh were metered (billed) to their customers.

Further, if one reviews the Hydro One Annual Report for 2016 they claim (page 2) total electricity distributed was 26,289 GWh or 26,289,000,000 kWh. So that begs the question — which is it?

Based on the foregoing puzzling facts, it is impossible as one example, to determine what the average distribution rate is by classification of ratepayer yet data provided should logically allow for that to happen.

Hydro One reports $183 million in “Other Income”

This example is related to the income statement filed by Hydro One (page 33 in the Yearbook) which contains a claim they generated “Other Income” in the amount of $183 million. Yet a reference to their audited financial statement for the year ended December 31, 2016 contains no claim related to that heading.

The query to what that was got the following answer from Hydro One:

“Starting in 2016, the OEB restated how the Other Income (Loss) item is reported in their Yearbook. In 2016, the OEB subtracts an accounting item – the Standard Supply Service Admin Revenue – from the Power and Distribution Revenue amount. SSS Admin Revenue is an OEB-set administrative fee paid by customers who purchase electricity directly from their local utility. This charge is also deducted from the revenue requirement in the derivation of rates revenue requirement. To balance, the SSS Admin Revenue is then added back into Other Income (Loss) by the OEB. There are two other accounting items in 2016 for Other Income (Loss): Total Operating Revenues and Other Incomes/Deductions, with the sum of these three adding up to $183M.”

So, the sudden appearance of $183 million under the heading “Other Income” was blamed on the accounting standards of the OEB. That led me to believe it was perhaps related to revenue paid to “embedded” generation from wind, solar, etc., less the cost of billed kWh for consumption by those same ratepayers. When I made the inquiry to the OEB along those lines I brought out the fact that the numbers posted in the Yearbook for Hydro One related to the posted amount for the Cost of Power was $3,292 billion, but on Hydro One’s annual statement it was $3,427 billion or a difference of $135 million.

The OEB’s response was:

“The netting of the revenue/costs is not associated with embedded generation. The OEB revised the individual trial balance accounts that are aggregated to obtain the “Power and Distribution Revenue” and “Other Income” line item values reported in the 2016 Yearbook in order to improve the accuracy. Please refer to Glossary on page 135 of the 2016 Yearbook for a listing of the accounts that are aggregated for the line items reported in the 2016 Yearbook and the OEB’s Accounting Procedures Handbook for details on the individual uniform system of accounts (USoA). As a result of this change, the $183.2 million shown in “Other Income” includes $125 million that Hydro One reported in Account 4245, Government and Other Assistance Directly Credited to Income. The $125 million is related to Rural or Remote Electricity Rate Protection (RRRP)** revenues. The net effect of the change is zero as the increase in “Other Income” is offset by a decrease in ‘Power and Distribution Revenue.’ The change in the account aggregation and reporting format has no bearing or relationship to changes in the Hydro One’s reported consumption data.”

It appears the accounting tricks the Premier Wynne led government concocted under the “Fair Hydro Act” highlighted by the Auditor General may have permeated other parts of the Energy portfolio including either or both of the OEB or Hydro One. All indications are, the new information blurs any transparency it was meant to create.

Parker Gallant,

* I have criticized Hydro One in the past for not claiming they service urban communities as they provide power to small cities (e.g., Trenton) and numerous towns that would be considered “urban” but never claimed they did.

** The Fair Hydro Act moved the costs of the RRRP to taxpayers as it principally supports indigenous communities.

And the winner (loser) is … Ontario!

Ontario ratepayers well ahead in international competition to see who pays more for nothing.

Ontario turbines near Comber: money for nothing

A recent article appearing in Energy Voice was all about the costs of “constraint” payments to onshore industrial wind developments in Scotland.  It started with the following bad news:

“According to figures received by Energy Voice, the cost of paying wind farm operators to power down in order to prevent the generation of excess energy is stacking up with more than £300million* paid out since 2010.”  (£300 million at the current exchange rate is equal to about CAD $500 million. ) 

What Scotland refers to as “constrained” Ontario calls “curtailed,” but they mean exactly the same thing. Ontario didn’t start constraining/curtailing generation until mid-September 2013, or almost three full years after the article’s reference date for Scotland. Curtailment prevents the grid from breaking down and causing blackout or brownouts.

The article from Energy Voice goes on: “In 2016 alone, Scottish onshore wind farms received £69million in constraint payments for limiting 1,048,890MWh worth of energy”.

Ontario in 2016, curtailed 2,327,228 MWh (megawatt hours). That figure comes from Scott Luft who uses data supplied by IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) for grid-connected wind power projects and conservatively estimates curtailed wind for distributor-connected turbines to compile the information.

What that means: in 2016 it cost Ontario’s ratepayers CAD $$279.2 million** versus £69 million (CAD equivalent $115.2 million) for Scottish ratepayers. So, Ontario easily beat Scotland in both the amount of constrained wind generation as well as the subsidy cost for ratepayers who in both cases paid handsomely for the non-delivery of power!

The article went on to note: “By August 2017, the bill had already reached in excess of £55million in payments for 800,000MWh”!

Once again Ontario’s ratepayers easily took the subsidy title by curtailing 2.1 million MWh in the first eight months of the current year, coughing up over $252.5 million Canadian versus the equivalent of CAD $92 million by Scottish ratepayers.

In fact, since September 2013, Ontario has curtailed about 5.5 million MWh and ratepayers picked up subsidy costs of over $660 million.

Ratepayers in both Ontario and Scotland are victims of government mismanagement and wind power industry propaganda, and are paying to subsidize the intermittent and unreliable generation of electricity by industrial wind turbines.

(C) Parker Gallant

* One British Pound is currently equal to approximately CAD $1.67.

**Industrial wind generators are strongly rumored to be paid $120 per MWh for curtailed generation.

Ontario summer day means low power demand, high costs for consumers

A windy, sunny August day: sounds nice? In Ontario, that costs you. [Photo: Dorothea Larsen]
August 5 2017 was an interesting day: the wind was blowing and the sun was shining, in part of Ontario, anyway.

Unfortunately for Ontario ratepayers that weather will cost them a lot of money.

Why? The cost stems from the fact Ontario’s demand for electricity on that day was only 317,000 megawatts (MWh),* according to the IESO Daily Market Summary, probably due to conservation efforts and mild temperatures.  Low demand doesn’t save money: in fact, it will cost Ontario ratepayers millions of dollars due to bad management of the electricity sector by the current government.

I was curious about this windy, sunny day, which led me to contact Scott Luft, a master at using IESO data to give us a real picture of market demand and its costs.  Scott occasionally produces “Daily Ontario Supply Estimates” which provide a picture of both our demand and generated sources, what it cost, how much was exported, how much was curtailed/spilled (wasted), etc., and even how much of the costs were picked up by Class B ratepayers versus Class A.

Scott also estimates curtailed wind, spilled hydro, etc., using a conservative approach; they are generally confirmed months later by IESO.

Scott’s daily estimate for August 5, 2017 confirmed my suspicions!   Emissions-free nuclear and hydro generators alone supplied the 340,000 MWh of power Ontario needed easily, even exceeding Ontario demand by 23,000 MWh.  The cost of that generation was $21.1 million. After allowing for the value of the surplus 23,000 MWh as exports at the average hourly Ontario energy price (HOEP) of $4.94/MWh the cost per MWh comes to $66.34/MWh or 6.6 cents/kWh.**

Double the cost — and you’re paying it

Part of Scott’s daily estimate includes additional costs in the form of all the other generation sources, plus curtailed wind and solar, spilled hydro, biofuel and idling costs of gas plants. When those are added to the $21.1 million of nuclear and hydro, the price billed to ratepayers for the day jumps to $37.8 million — $119.24/MWh or 11.9 cents/kWh.  The Class A to Class B subsidy results in the cost per kWh for the “B” Class (that’s you and me) jumping to $131.10/MWh or 13.1 cents/kWh.

The other generation sources on Scott’s August 5 daily estimates include transmission (TX) and distributor (DX) connected generation, along with curtailed/idled, etc. costs with gas at 9,123 MWh (cost $4.1 million), wind at 49,088 MWh (cost $6.3 million), solar at 13,002 MWh (cost $6.1 million), biofuel at 701 MWh (cost $368,000) and imports of 8,563 MWh (cost $52,000).

The costs to you are mounting

Are you with me so far? What this means is, those other generation sources (including curtailed wind, etc.) of 85,000 MWh cost $16.7 million — $196.47/MWh or 19.5 cents/kWh) and are billed to … you, Ontario’s ratepayers.

Approximately $8.1 million of the day’s costs will be allocated to the Fair Hydro Plan and wind up on future electricity bills. If August 5 was a typical day, the amount kicked down the road for the next four years by the Premier Wynne-led government will amount to $3 billion annually (plus interest).  (The $8.1 million estimate for this day comes from the use of what is referred to as the “Global Adjustment Modifier” set by the OEB at $32.90/MWh from July 1, 2017 to April 30, 2018 and will be reset at the later date. The $8.1 million was obtained by simply multiplying Class B consumption — 246,000 MWh — by the $32.90 “Modifier”.)

Mismanagement of the energy portfolio by the Wynne-led government on August 5 generated a cost for Class B ratepayers that was excessive. It will continue, and lead to an explosion of households living in “energy poverty”*** when the Fair Hydro Plan comes to an end in four years.

The Minister of Energy needs to recognize the problems caused by intermittent and unreliable renewable energy!  Once he understands the latter he should immediately cancel any wind and solar contracted projects that have not commenced construction, along with any in the early planning stages.

Kicking the can down the road via the Fair Hydro Act is anything but fair. Paying twice for non-emitting clean energy simply amplifies the bad management this portfolio has received from our government.

Parker Gallant

August 11, 2017

*   Some of the above MWh references are rounded to the nearest thousand.

** The 6.6 cent rate, coincidentally, is close to our new off-peak rate of 6.5 cents/kWh (previously 8.7 cents/kWh) which came into effect July 1, 2017. The lower rate is a result of the “Fair Hydro Plan” instituted by the Premier Wynne that kicked 25% of the costs down the road for four years.  The Off-Peak rate back on May 1, 2007 was 3.2 cents/kWh so even after the recent reduction it is still up over 103% in the last 10 years.

*** Energy poverty is generally defined as utilizing 10% or more of a household’s disposal income to pay for their electricity and heating needs.