BC Prompt Payment Legislation Overview for Electrical Contractors

"British Columbia tabled Bill 20 on October 7; the culmination of years of effort to introduce prompt payment legislation in the province. "Bill 20 aims to establish clear payment timelines and a fast-track adjudication process, but it may not be implemented for another 18 months, and there is still a lot of work ahead." The Electrical Business Network interviewed association proponents who were involved in the final decisions around this bill—here's what they had to say about this process: https://heyor.ca/SuJ60z #BCConstructionIndustry #BuildingBC

As electricity affordability remains a serious concern for families and businesses, some utilities are asking FERC for a five-year moratorium to avoid competing to build large transmission projects. If FERC granted the request, consumers will pay even higher prices. Their request is inconsistent with President Trumps Rate ‘Payer Protection Pledge’. Granting the moratorium would increase transmission costs by an estimated 34 percent, with those costs passed directly onto ratepayers in 18 states, affecting more than 40 million households and 3 million businesses. Competition reduces electricity prices and delivers projects on time. In this new RTO Insider op-ed, ETCC Chairman Paul Cicio explains why FERC should reject this anti-competitive proposal and remain focused on its mandate to ensure rates are just and reasonable. https://lnkd.in/eFttDhe9

As electricity affordability remains a serious concern for families and businesses, some utilities are asking FERC for a five-year moratorium to avoid competing to build large transmission projects. If FERC granted the request, consumers will pay even higher prices. Their request is inconsistent with President Trumps Rate ‘Payer Protection Pledge’. Granting the moratorium would increase transmission costs by an estimated 34 percent, with those costs passed directly onto ratepayers in 18 states, affecting more than 40 million households and 3 million businesses. Competition reduces electricity prices and delivers projects on time. In this new RTO Insider op-ed, ETCC Chairman Paul Cicio explains why FERC should reject this anti-competitive proposal and remain focused on its mandate to ensure rates are just and reasonable.

🧠 What Aristotle and Francis Bacon Would Say About UK Electricity Pricing and the EPC Puzzle If Aristotle and Francis Bacon were handed the UK’s electricity‑pricing system and the EPC framework, their conversation would be painfully simple. Aristotle would say: A system should reward virtue. Yet here, citizens who choose cleaner, more efficient electric heating are punished because the price of electricity — not the efficiency of the home — determines the rating. This is not the Golden Mean. It is a category error. Bacon would reply: When the instrument of measurement is flawed, the knowledge derived from it must be flawed also. The EPC confuses cost with cause. It judges the house by the tariff, not the physics. This is an idol of the marketplace — a distortion born of habit, not reason. And together they would conclude: A nation cannot advance if its measurements mislead it, nor can it compete if its systems punish the very behaviours it seeks to encourage. When electricity prices rise because of market design, and EPC scores fall because electricity is expensive, the citizen is not at fault — the architecture is. #Energy #EPC #Electricity #Competitiveness #CostOfLiving #UKEconomy #SystemsThinking #Aristotle #FrancisBacon #ThoughtLeadership #Infrastructure #LinkedInWriters #CopilotAnalysis

Gas prices remain sky high – meanwhile, public transportation remains an affordable option for New Yorkers from Buffalo to Binghamton and beyond. Public transit systems need support from state lawmakers to keep up with the demand. The Legislature and Governor must include a 15% increase in State Transit Operating Assistance (STOA) for all upstate and downstate non-MTA transit systems in the final state budget. New York can’t afford not to.

Ontario Electrical League Elgin Middlesex Chapter is looking forward to learning and understanding payment laws that directly affect contractors, from prompt payment rules and timelines, to when and how construction liens work, and what legal options actually make sense when payment disputes arise - featuring special guests Sarah Naughton and Todd Storms from Soloway Wright LLP on May 12th. www.oel.org #ElectricalTrade #KnowMore #GetPaid

Electricity bills can be confusing, and lately they’re more expensive. Here’s what to know: ISO New England operates the regional power grid and wholesale markets, which make up about a third of the charges on your bill. We don’t set retail rates, control fuel prices, or manage local power delivery. Those charges, and others, are determined by utilities, regulators, and policymakers. This video explains who does what and what’s behind the cost of electricity in New England. https://lnkd.in/e4xe6cw4

Consumers Cannot Be Burdened For Power They Never Received: Supreme Court Clarifies Limits On Electricity Cost Recovery In a significant ruling strengthening consumer rights and regulatory accountability, the Supreme Court observed that electricity consumers cannot be made to bear depreciation costs of a power plant during periods when electricity was not supplied to them. The judgment reinforces a fundamental principle of fairness — charges imposed on consumers must correspond to actual service delivery and cannot become a mechanism to shift financial burdens arising from non-supply. The ruling highlights that regulatory powers in the energy sector are not unlimited and must operate within principles of transparency, reasonableness, and public interest. It also underlines the importance of judicial oversight in balancing commercial viability with consumer protection. As infrastructure and energy disputes continue to evolve, this decision serves as an important reminder: consumers should pay for electricity supplied, not for inefficiencies or periods of non-performance. This judgment may influence future discussions on tariff structures, reassessment of utility costs, and accountability within the power sector. #SupremeCourt #EnergyLaw #ConsumerRights #ElectricityLaw #RegulatoryLaw #CorporateLaw #LegalUpdate #IndianLaw #PowerSector #Litigation #LawMatrix #ConsumerProtection #LegalNews #TariffRegulation #Judiciary

I’m lucky to have known and been able to learn from Michael Powell on energy issues for close to 20 years now. He breaks down complicated topics into digestible analysis AND can give you the deep dive if you need it. A little bit of both here on a whopper of a bill. I’m a LITTLE glad I wasn’t the fiscal note writer for this one.

Making CCUS harder to build, one tax rule at a time…? I’m curious and honestly perplexed by the federal government’s motivation behind this restriction, particularly given the CRA’s earlier positive interpretation of the CCUS ITC. The CRA appeared to recognize a pretty basic electricity market reality: you could oversize one CCUS power plant and sell electricity directly through the grid to another CCUS facility, with contractual earmarking showing where the power was going. The transmission system was simply facilitating the transfer. Can someone explain the logic here? Administrative simplicity over practical reality? CCUS costs are already high enough. If companies can lower costs by scaling power plants and selling surplus power to another qualifying CCUS facility, why restrict that model? It seems like we are making shared infrastructure harder instead of easier. Given the increasing reliance on the tax code by the federal government to drive decarb investment, this sort of misalignment needs to be sorted out.