Texas oil man bets on wind

UK Coal-Free Electricity Record highlights rapid growth in renewables as National Grid phases out coal; wind, solar, and offshore projects surge, green tariffs expand, and energy comparison helps consumers switch to cheaper, cleaner deals.

Key Points

Britain's longest coal-free run, enabled by renewables, lower demand, and grid shifts for cheaper, greener tariffs.

✅ Record set after two months without coal-fired generation

✅ Renewables outpace fossil fuels; wind and solar dominate

✅ Green tariffs expand; prices at three-year lows

On Wednesday 10 June, Britain hit a significant landmark: the UK went for two full months without burning coal to generate power – that's the longest period since the 1880s, following earlier milestones such as a full week without coal power in the recent past.

According to the National Grid, Britain has now run its electricity network without burning coal since midnight on the 9 April. This coal-free period has beaten the country’s previous record of 18 days, six hours and 10 minutes, which was set in June 2019, even though low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 according to analyses.

With such a shift in Britain’s drive for renewables and lower electricity demand following the coronavirus lockdown, as Britain recorded its cleanest electricity during lockdown to date, now may be the perfect time to do an online energy comparison and switch to a cheaper, greener deal.

Only a decade ago, around 40 per cent of Britain’s electricity came from coal generation, but since then the country has gradually shifted towards renewable energy, with the coal share at record lows in the system today. When Britain was forced into lockdown in response to the coronavirus pandemic, electricity demand dropped sharply, and the National Grid took the four remaining coal-fired plants off the network.

Over the past 10 years, Britain has invested heavily in renewable energy. Back in 2010, only 3 per cent of the country's electricity came from wind and solar, and many people remained sceptical. However, now, the UK has the biggest offshore wind industry in the world. Plus, last year, construction of the world’s single largest wind farm was completed off the coast of Yorkshire.

At the same time, Drax – Britain’s biggest power plant – has started to switch from burning coal to burning compressed wooden pellets instead, reflecting the UK's progress as it keeps breaking its coal-free energy record again across the grid. By this time next year, the plant hopes to have phased out coal entirely.

So far this year, renewables have generated more power than all fossil fuels put together, the BBC reports, and the energy dashboard shows the current mix in real time. Renewables have been responsible for 37 per cent of electricity supplied to the network, with wind and solar surpassing nuclear for the first time, while fossil fuels have accounted for 35 per cent. During the same period, nuclear accounted for 18 per cent and imports made up the remaining 10 per cent.

What does this mean for consumers?

As the country’s electricity supply moves more towards renewables, customers have more choice than ever before. Most of the ‘Big Six’ energy companies now have tariffs that offer 100 per cent green electricity. On top of this, specialist green energy suppliers such as Bulb, Octopus and Green Energy UK make it easier than ever to find a green energy tariff.

The good news is that our energy comparison research suggests that green energy doesn’t have to cost you more than a traditional fixed-price energy contract would. In fact, some of the cheapest energy suppliers are actually green companies.

At present, energy bills are at three-year lows, which means that now is the perfect time to switch supplier. As prices remain low and renewables begin to dominate the marketplace, more switchers will be drawn to green energy deals than ever before.

However, if you’re interested in choosing a green energy supplier, make sure that you look at the company's fuel mix. This way, you’ll be able to see whether they are guaranteeing the usage of green energy, or whether they’re just offsetting your usage. All suppliers must report how their energy is generated to Ofgem, so you’ll easily be able to compare providers.

You may find that you pay more for a supplier that generates its own energy from renewables, or pay less if the supplier simply matches your usage by buying green energy. You can decide which option is right for you after comparing the prices.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany Nuclear Power Extension debated as Olaf Scholz weighs energy crisis, gas shortages from Russia, slow grid expansion in Bavaria, and renewables delays; stress test results may guide policy alongside coal plant reactivations.

Key Points

A proposal to delay Germany's nuclear phaseout to stabilize power supply amid gas cuts and slow grid upgrades.

✅ Driven by Russia gas cuts and Nord Stream 1 curtailment

✅ Targets Bavaria grid bottlenecks; renewables deployment delays

✅ Decision awaits grid stress test; coalition parties remain split

The German chancellor on Wednesday said it might make sense to extend the lifetime of Germany's three remaining nuclear power plants.

Germany famously decided to stop using atomic energy in 2011, and the last remaining plants were set to close at the end of this year.

However, an increasing number of politicians have been arguing for the postponement of the closures amid energy concerns arising from Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The issue divides members of Scholz's ruling traffic-light coalition.

What did the chancellor say?
Visiting a factory in western Germany, where a vital gas turbine is being stored, Chancellor Olaf Scholz was responding to a question about extending the lifetime of the power stations.

He said the nuclear power plants in question were only relevant for a small proportion of electricity production. "Nevertheless, that can make sense," he said.

The German government has previously said that renewable energy alternatives are the key to solving the country's energy problems.

However, Scholz said this was not happening quickly enough in some parts of Germany, such as Bavaria.

"The expansion of power line capacities, of the transmission grid in the south, has not progressed as quickly as was planned," the chancellor said.

"We will act for the whole of Germany, we will support all regions of Germany in the best possible way so that the energy supply for all citizens and all companies can be guaranteed as best as possible."

The phaseout has been planned for a long time. Germany's Social Democrat government, under Merkel's predecessor Gerhard Schröder, had announced that Germany would stop using nuclear power by 2022 as planned.

Schröder's successor Angela Merkel — herself a former physicist — had initially sought to extend to life of existing nuclear plants to as late as 2037. She viewed nuclear power as a bridging technology to sustain the country until new alternatives could be found.

However, Merkel decided to ditch atomic energy in 2011, after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, setting Germany on a path to become the first major economy to phase out coal and nuclear in tandem.

Nuclear power accounted for 13.3% of German electricity supply in 2021. This was generated by six power plants, of which three were switched off at the end of 2021. The remaining three — Emsland, Isar and Neckarwestheim — were due to shut down at the end of 2022. 

Germany's energy mix 1st half of 2022
The need to fill an energy gap has emerged after Russia dramatically reduced gas deliveries to Germany through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, though nuclear power would do little to solve the gas issue according to some officials. Officials in Berlin say the Kremlin is seeking to punish the country — which is heavily reliant on Moscow's gas — for its support of Ukraine and sanctions on Russia.

Germany has already said it will temporarily fire up mothballed coal and oil power plants in a bid to solve the looming power crisis.

Social Democrat Scholz and Germany's energy minister, Robert Habeck, from the Green Party, a junior partner in the three-way coalition government, had previously ruled out any postponement of the nuclear phasout, despite debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy among some lawmakers. The third member of Scholz's coalition, the neoliberal Free Democrats, has voiced support for the extension, as has the opposition conservative CDU-CSU bloc.

Berlin has said it will await the outcome of a new "stress test" of Germany's electric grid before deciding on the phaseout.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Wall Street Fossil Fuel Pivot signals banks reassessing ESG, net-zero, and decarbonization goals, reviving oil, gas, and coal financing while recalibrating clean energy exposure amid policy shifts, regulatory rollbacks, and investment risk realignment.

Key Points

A shift as major U.S. banks ease ESG limits to fund oil, gas, coal while rebalancing alongside renewables.

✅ Banks revisit lending to oil, gas, and coal after policy shifts.

✅ ESG and net-zero commitments face reassessment amid returns.

✅ Renewables compete for capital as risk models are updated.

The global energy finance sector, worth a staggering $1.4 trillion, is undergoing a significant transformation, largely due to former President Donald Trump's renewed support for the oil, gas, and coal industries. Wall Street, which had previously aligned itself with global climate initiatives and the energy transition and net-zero goals, is now reassessing its strategy and pivoting toward a more fossil-fuel-friendly stance.

This shift represents a major change from the earlier stance, where many of the largest U.S. banks and financial institutions took a firm stance on decarbonization push, including limiting their exposure to fossil-fuel projects. Just a few years ago, these institutions were vocal supporters of the global push for a sustainable future, with many committing to support clean energy solutions and abandon investments in high-carbon energy sources.

However, with the change in administration and the resurgence of support for traditional energy sectors under Trump’s policies, these same banks are now rethinking their strategies. Financial institutions are increasingly discussing the possibility of lifting long-standing restrictions that limited their investments in controversial fossil-fuel projects, including coal mining, where emissions drop as coal declines, and offshore drilling. The change reflects a broader realignment within the energy finance sector, with Wall Street reexamining its role in shaping the future of energy.

One of the most significant developments is the Biden administration’s policy reversal, which emphasized reducing the U.S. carbon footprint in favor of carbon-free electricity strategies. Under Trump, however, there has been a renewed focus on supporting the traditional energy sectors. His administration has pushed to reduce regulatory burdens on fossil-fuel companies, particularly oil and gas, while simultaneously reintroducing favorable tax incentives for the coal and gas industries. This is a stark contrast to the Biden administration's efforts to incentivize the transition toward renewable energy and zero-emissions goals.

Trump's policies have, in effect, sent a strong signal to financial markets that the fossil-fuel industry could see a resurgence. U.S. banks, which had previously distanced themselves from financing oil and gas ventures due to the pressure from environmental activists and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investors, as seen in investor pressure on Duke Energy, are now reconsidering their positions. Major players like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs are reportedly having internal discussions about revisiting financing for energy projects that involve high carbon emissions, including controversial oil extraction and gas drilling initiatives.

The implications of this shift are far-reaching. In the past, a growing number of institutional investors had embraced ESG principles, with the goal of supporting the transition to renewable energy sources. However, Trump’s pro-fossil fuel stance appears to be emboldening Wall Street’s biggest players to rethink their commitment to green investing. Some are now advocating for a “balanced approach” that would allow for continued investment in traditional energy sectors, while also acknowledging the growing importance of renewable energy investments, a trend echoed by European oil majors going electric in recent years.

This reversal has led to confusion among investors and analysts, who are now grappling with how to navigate a rapidly changing landscape. Wall Street's newfound support for the fossil-fuel industry comes amid a backdrop of global concerns about climate change. Many investors, who had previously embraced policies aimed at curbing the effects of global warming, are now finding it harder to reconcile their environmental commitments with the shift toward fossil-fuel-heavy portfolios. The reemergence of fossil-fuel-friendly policies is forcing institutional investors to rethink their long-term strategies.

The consequences of this policy shift are also being felt by renewable energy companies, which now face increased competition for investment dollars from traditional energy sectors. The shift towards oil and gas projects has made it more challenging for renewable energy companies to attract the same level of financial backing, even as demand for clean energy continues to rise and as doubling electricity investment becomes a key policy call. This could result in a deceleration of renewable energy projects, potentially delaying the progress needed to meet the world’s climate targets.

Despite this, some analysts remain optimistic that the long-term shift toward green energy is inevitable, even if fossil-fuel investments gain a temporary boost. As the world continues to grapple with the effects of climate change, and as technological advancements in clean energy continue to reduce costs, the transition to renewables is likely to persist, regardless of the political climate.

The shift in Wall Street’s approach to energy investments, spurred by Trump’s pro-fossil fuel policies, is reshaping the $1.4 trillion global energy finance market. While the pivot towards fossil fuels may offer short-term gains, the long-term trajectory for energy markets remains firmly in the direction of renewables. The next few years will be crucial in determining whether financial institutions can balance the demand for short-term profitability with their long-term environmental responsibilities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Alberta Solar Power is accelerating as renewable energy investment, PPAs, and utility-scale projects expand the grid, with independent power producers and foreign capital outperforming AESO forecasts in oil-and-gas-rich markets across Alberta and Calgary.

Key Points

Alberta Solar Power is a fast-growing provincial market, driven by PPAs and private investment, outpacing AESO forecasts.

✅ Utility-scale projects and PPAs expand capacity beyond AESO outlooks

✅ Private and foreign capital drive independent power producers

✅ Costs near $70/MWh challenge >$100/MWh assumptions

Solar power is beating expectations in oil and gas rich Alberta, where the renewable energy source is poised to expand dramatically amid a renewable energy surge in the coming years as international power companies invest in the province.

Fresh capital is being deployed in the Alberta’s electricity generation sector for both renewable and natural gas-fired power projects after years of uncertainty caused by changes and reversals in the province’s power market, said Duane Reid-Carlson, president of power consulting firm EDC Associates, who advises renewable power developers on electric projects in the province.

“From the mix of projects that we see in the queue at the (Alberta Electric System Operator) and the projects that have been announced, Alberta, a powerhouse for both green energy and fossil fuels, has no shortage of thermal and renewable projects,” Reid-Carlson said, adding that he sees “a great mix” of independent power companies and foreign firms looking to build renewable projects in Alberta.

Alberta is a unique power market in Canada because its electricity supply is not dominated by a Crown corporation such as BC Hydro, Hydro One or Hydro Quebec. Instead, a mix of private-sector companies and a few municipally owned utilities generate electricity, transmit and distribute that power to households and industries under long-term contracts.

Last week, Perimeter Solar Inc., backed by Danish solar power investor Obton AS, announced Sept. 30 that it had struck a deal to sell renewable energy to Calgary-based pipeline giant TC Energy Corp. with 74.25 megawatts of electricity from a new 130-MW solar power project immediately south of Calgary. Neither company disclosed the costs of the transaction or the project.

“We are very pleased that of all the potential off-takers in the market for energy, we have signed with a company as reputable as TC Energy,” Obton CEO Anders Marcus said in a release announcing the deal, which it called “the largest negotiated energy supply agreement with a North American energy company.”

Perimeter expects to break ground on the project, which will more than double the amount of solar power being produced in the province, by the end of this year.

A report published Monday by the Energy Information Administration, a unit of the U.S. Department of Energy, estimated that renewable energy powered 3 per cent of Canada’s energy consumption in 2018.

Between the Claresholm project and other planned solar installations, utility companies are poised to install far more solar power than the province is currently planning for, even as Alberta faces challenges with solar expansion today.

University of Calgary adjunct professor Blake Shaffer said it was “ironic” that the Claresholm Solar project was announced the exact same day as the Alberta Electric System Operator released a forecast that under-projected the amount of solar in the province’s electric grid.

The power grid operator (AESO) released its forecast on Sept. 30, which predicted that solar power projects would provide just 1 per cent of Alberta’s electricity supply by 2030 at 231 megawatts.

Shaffer said the AESO, which manages and operates the province’s electricity grid, is assuming that on a levelized basis solar power will need a price over $100 per megawatt hour for new investment. However, he said, based on recent solar contracts for government infrastructure projects, the cost is closer to $70 MW/h.

Most forecasting organizations like the International Energy Agency have had to adjust their forecasts for solar power adoption higher in the past, as growth of the renewable energy source has outperformed expectations.

Calgary-based Greengate Power has also proposed a $500-million, 400-MW solar project near Vulcan, a town roughly one-hour by car southeast of Calgary.

“So now we’re getting close to 700 MW (of solar power),” Shaffer said, which is three times the AESO forecast.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

DOE Office of Fossil Energy safeguards energy security via the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, domestic critical minerals from coal byproducts, and carbon capture to curb CO2, strengthening resiliency amid shocks and supporting U.S. manufacturing and defense.

Key Points

A DOE program advancing energy security through SPR stewardship, critical minerals R&D, and carbon capture.

✅ Manages the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for emergency crude supply

✅ Develops domestic critical minerals from coal and mining byproducts

✅ Deploys carbon capture, utilization, and storage to cut CO2

The global economy has just experienced a period of unique transformation because of COVID-19. The fact that remains constant in this new economic landscape is that our society relies on energy; it’s an integral part of our day-to-day lives, even as U.S. energy use has evolved over time. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, approximately 80 percent of energy consumption in the United States comes from fossil fuels, so having access to a secure and reliable supply of those energy resources is more important than ever for national energy security considerations today. Below are three examples that highlight how our work at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy (FE) helps ensure the Nation’s energy security and resiliency.

(1) Open crude oil reserves to respond to crises

FE has overall program responsibility for carrying out the mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), the world’s largest supply of emergency crude oil. These federally-owned stocks are stored in massive underground salt caverns along the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico. The SPR is a powerful tool U.S. leaders use to respond to a wide range of crises, including energy crisis impacts on electricity and fuels, involving crude oil disruption or demand loss.  When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the oil markets crashed and crude oil demand dropped drastically across the world. U.S. oil producers turned to the SPR to store their oil while broader energy dominance constraints were becoming evident in practice. This helped alleviate the pressure on producers to shut in oil production and proved to be a critical asset for American energy and national security.

(2) Use the Nation’s abundant coal reserves to produce valuable materials

Critical materials, including rare earth elements, are a group of chemical elements and materials with unique properties that support manufacturing of most modern technologies. They are essential components for critical defense and homeland security applications, green energy technologies, hybrid and electric vehicles, and high-value electronics. While these materials are not rare, they are hard to separate and expensive to extract. The United States relies heavily on imports from China. To reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources, FE has a research and development program aimed at producing a domestic supply of critical materials from the Nation’s abundant coal resources and associated byproducts from legacy and current mining operations. Many of the technologies being developed can also be used to separate critical minerals from other mining materials and byproducts. Tapping into these resources has the potential to create new industries and revitalize coal communities and the workforce in coal-producing regions.

(3) Decrease carbon emissions for a cleaner energy future

FE is committed to balancing the Nation’s energy use with the need to protect the environment, and has a comprehensive portfolio of technological solutions that help keep carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions out of the atmosphere. For example, amid high natural gas prices that reinforce the case for clean electricity, the Department has been investing in carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies for over a decade. These technologies capture CO2 emissions from various sources, including coal-fired power plants and manufacturing plants, before they enter the atmosphere. Several of these cutting-edge technologies have been deployed at major demonstration sites, supported by clean energy funding that aims to benefit millions. Three of these projects—Petra Nova, Archer Daniels Midland, and Air Products & Chemicals—have captured and injected over 10.8 million metric tons of CO2. The success of these projects is paving the way toward a cleaner and more sustainable American energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News