Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

International

California’s soaring electricity rates strain consumers, impact climate goals

Published

6 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

While the greenhouse gas reduction programs that raise electricity rates are part of California’s climate goals, the increased prices actually discourage individuals from switching away from using fossil fuels impacting California’s ambitious climate goals.

California has completed yet another year with some of the highest electricity rates in the country – almost double the national average. The state’s electricity rates have been increasing rapidly, outpacing inflation in recent years by approximately 47% from 2019 to 2023. This is due largely to the high rates charged by the state’s three large investor-owned utilities (IOUs).

According to a report published by the California Legislative Analyst Office, the factors driving rate increases are wildfire-related costs, greenhouse gas reduction mandates, and policies and differences in utility operational structures and services territories. Ratepayers bear the brunt of these costs with those who earn lower incomes and live in hotter areas of the state the most severely affected.

The report points out that while the greenhouse gas reduction programs that raise electricity rates are part of California’s climate goals, the increased prices actually discourage individuals from switching away from using fossil fuels impacting California’s ambitious climate goals.

These programs include the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires utilities to provide a percentage of retail electricity sales from renewable sources, raising costs for ratepayers. Additionally, SB 350 directs the CPUC to authorize ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs to meet California’s goal of doubling energy efficiency savings by 2030.

“While many other states operate ratepayer-supported energy efficiency programs, on average, we estimate that Californians contribute a notably greater share of their rates to such programs than is typical across the country,” the report notes.

Electricity rates pay for numerous costs related to the construction, maintenance and operation of electricity systems including the generation, transmission and distribution components. However, these rates also pay for costs unrelated to servicing electricity.

“Most notably, the state and IOUs use revenue generated from electricity rates to support various state-mandated public purpose programs,” the report says. “These programs have goals such as increasing energy efficiency, expediting adoption of renewable energy sources, supporting the transition to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), and providing lower-income customers with financial assistance.”

The largest public purpose program is the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE), which provides discounts for lower-income customers. However, the report notes that while CARE benefits certain customers, it shifts the costs onto other slightly higher-income customers and that the majority of Californians spend a larger portion of their income on electricity compared to other states.

 “According to data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, California households in the lowest quintile of the income distribution typically spend about 6 percent of their before-tax incomes on electricity, compared to less than 1 percent for the highest-income quintile of households,” reads the report. “Notably, high electricity rates also can impose burdens on moderate-income earners, since they also pay a larger share of their household incomes toward electricity than their higher-income counterparts but typically are not able to qualify for bill assistance programs.”

Electricity bills also reflect other state and local tax charges including utility taxes that are used to support programs such as fire response and parks in addition to the state-assessed charge on electricity use that is put into the Energy Resources Programs Account (ERPA). This account is used to pay for energy programs and planning activities.

While many of the funds recovered through electricity rates are fixed costs for programs, these costs increased in 2022 following the repeal of a state law that limited fixed charges at $10, requiring the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to authorize fixed charges that vary by income. These come out to be around $24 per month for non-CARE customers and $6 per month for CARE customers.

Wildfire related costs have also been increasing. Before 2019, wildfire costs included in electricity rates charged by IOUs were negligible, but now it has grown between 7% and 13% of typical non-CARE customers. Reasons for this increase include California’s high wildfire risk and the state’s liability standard holding IOUs responsible for all costs associated with utility-caused wildfires.

“The magnitude of the damages and risks from utility-sparked wildfires have increased substantially in recent years,” reads the report. “Correspondingly, IOUs have spent unprecedented amounts in recent years on wildfire mitigation-related activities to try to reduce the likelihood of future utility-caused wildfires, with the associated costs often passed along to ratepayers. Furthermore, California IOUs and their ratepayers pay for insurance against future wildfires, including contributing to the California Wildfire Fund.”

According to the report, electricity use and rates for Claifornians are only expected to increase and the legislature will have to determine how to tackle the statewide climate goals while reducing the burden on ratepayers.

conflict

Middle East clash sends oil prices soaring

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Rashid Husain Syed

The Israel-Iran conflict just flipped the script on falling oil prices, pushing them up fast, and that spike could hit your wallet at the pump

Oil prices are no longer being driven by supply and demand. The sudden escalation of military conflict between Israel and Iran has shattered market stability, reversing earlier forecasts and injecting dangerous uncertainty into the global energy system.

What just days ago looked like a steady decline in oil prices has turned into a volatile race upward, with threats of extreme price spikes looming.

For Canadians, these shifts are more than numbers on a commodities chart. Oil is a major Canadian export, and price swings affect everything from
provincial revenues, especially in Alberta and Saskatchewan, to what you pay at the pump. A sustained spike in global oil prices could also feed inflation, driving up the cost of living across the country.

Until recently, optimism over easing trade tensions between the U.S. and China had analysts projecting oil could fall below US$50 a barrel this year. Brent crude traded at US$66.82, and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) hovered near US$65, with demand growth sluggish, the slowest since the pandemic.

That outlook changed dramatically when Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets and Tehran’s counterattack, including hits on Israel’s Haifa refinery, sent shockwaves through global markets. Within hours, Brent crude surged to US$74.23, and WTI climbed to US$72.98, despite later paring back overnight gains of over 13 per cent. The conflict abruptly reversed the market outlook and reintroduced a risk premium amid fears of disruption in the world’s critical oil-producing region.

Amid mounting tensions, attention has turned to the Strait of Hormuz—the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman through which nearly 20 per cent of the world’s oil ows, including supplies that inuence global and
Canadian fuel prices. While Iran has not yet signalled a closure, the possibility
remains, with catastrophic implications for supply and prices if it occurs.

Analysts have adjusted forecasts accordingly. JPMorgan warns oil could hit US$120 to US$130 per barrel in a worst-case scenario involving military conflict and a disruption of shipments through the strait. Goldman Sachs estimates Brent could temporarily spike above US$90 due to a potential loss of 1.75 million barrels per day of Iranian supply over six months, partially offset by increased OPEC+ output. In a note published Friday morning, Goldman Sachs analysts Daan Struyven and his team wrote: “We estimate that Brent jumps to a peak just over US$90 a barrel but declines back to the US$60s in 2026 as Iran supply recovers. Based on our prior analysis, we estimate that oil prices may exceed US$100 a barrel in an extreme tail scenario of an extended disruption.”

Iraq’s foreign minister, Fuad Hussein, has issued a more dire warning: “The Strait of Hormuz might be closed due to the Israel-Iran confrontation, and the world markets could lose millions of barrels of oil per day in supplies. This could result in a price increase of between US$200 and US$300 per barrel.”

During a call with German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, Hussein added: “If military operations between Iran and Israel continue, the global market will lose approximately five million barrels per day produced by Iraq and the Gulf states.”

Such a supply shock would worsen inflation, strain economies, and hurt both exporters and importers, including vulnerable countries like Iraq.

Despite some analysts holding to base-case forecasts in the low to mid-US$60s for 2025, that optimism now looks fragile. The oil market is being held hostage by geopolitics, sidelining fundamentals.

What happens next depends on whether the region plunges deeper into conflict or pulls back. But for now, one thing is clear: the calm is over, and oil is once again at the mercy of war.

Toronto-based Rashid Husain Syed is a highly regarded analyst specializing in energy and politics, particularly in the Middle East. In addition to his contributions to local and international newspapers, Rashid frequently lends his expertise as a speaker at global conferences. Organizations such as the Department of Energy in Washington and the International Energy Agency in Paris have sought his insights on global energy matters.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

International

Trump not seeking ceasefire with Israel, Iran as he rushes back to White House

Published on

From The Center Square

By

After leaving the G7 summit ahead of schedule, President Donald Trump quashed any talk of trying to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Iran.

Trump told reporters onboard Air Force One early Tuesday morning he wasn’t looking for a ceasefire but is seeking “a real end” with the Islamic Republic “giving up entirely” on their nuclear weapons.

The president underscored previous comments regarding Iran not having nuclear weapons.

“Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. It’s very simple – you don’t have to go too deep into it. They just can’t have a nuclear weapon,” Trump told reporters.

The president called out French President Emmanuel Macron for falsely claiming Trump was headed back to the White House in a bid to negotiate a ceasefire.

“Publicity seeking President Emmanuel Macron, of France, mistakenly said that I left the G7 Summit, in Canada, to go back to D.C. to work on a ‘cease fire’ between Israel and Iran. Wrong! He has no idea why I am now on my way to Washington, but it certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire. Much bigger than that. Whether purposely or not, Emmanuel always gets it wrong. Stay Tuned!” the president posted to Truth Social.

“I’m not too much in the mood to negotiate [with Iran],” Trump told reporters. “An end, a real end, not a ceasefire, real end.”

The president tried to quell concerns that Iran may target U.S. assets in the region, reiterating earlier warnings to the Islamic Republic.

“We’ll come down so hard, it’d be gloves off…I think they know not to touch our troops,” Trump told reporters.

The president left the door open to sending Vice President JD Vance or Steve Witkoff, special envoy to the Middle East, to meet with Iranian officials.

“Depends on what happens when I get back,” Trump told reporters.

Upon returning to the White House early Tuesday morning, the president said he would head to the situation room. He argued that returning to the White House allowed him to learn more.

“Just to be a little bit, I think more well versed, not having to use telephones so much because I don’t believe in telephones, because people like you listen to them…Being on the scene is much better, and we did everything I had to do at the G7,” the president said.

The White House announced the president’s departure from the summit Monday afternoon after multiple reports claimed the U.S. was taking part in the campaign against the Islamic State.

Alex Pfeiffer, deputy assistant to the president and principal deputy communication at the White House, quickly disputed the reports.

“This is not true. American forces are maintaining their defensive posture, and that has not changed. We will defend American interests,” Pfeiffer posted to X.

Earlier on Monday, Trump posted an ominous message to Iran and its people, warning them to evacuate.

“Iran should have signed the ‘deal’ I told them to sign. What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” the president posted to Truth Social.

He followed the warning with another post, reiterating that Iran should not have nuclear weapons.

“AMERICA FIRST means many GREAT things, including the fact that, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!” he posted later.

As the conflict enters the fifth day of fighting, Israel Defense Forces announced that it had “eliminated” another top Iranian military commander.

“For the second time in 5 days – the IDF has eliminated Iran’s War-Time Chief of Staff, the regime’s top military commander. Ali Shadman, Iran’s senior-most military official and Khamenei’s closest military advisor, was killed in an IAF strike in central Tehran, following precise intelligence,” the IDF posted to X.

This is a developing story.

Continue Reading

Trending

X