Bill aims to make Tennessee buildings energy efficient

U.S. Russian Uranium Import Ban reshapes nuclear fuel supply, bolstering energy security, domestic enrichment, and sanctions policy while diversifying reactor-grade uranium sources and supply chains through allies, waivers, and funding to sustain utilities and reliability.

Key Points

A U.S. law halting Russian uranium imports to boost energy security diversify nuclear fuel and revive U.S. enrichment.

✅ Cuts Russian revenue; reduces geopolitical risk.

✅ Funds U.S. enrichment; supports reactor fuel supply.

✅ Enables waivers to prevent utility shutdowns.

In a move aimed at reducing reliance on Russia and fostering domestic energy security for the long term, the United States has banned imports of Russian uranium, a critical component of nuclear fuel. This decision, signed into law by President Biden in May 2024, marks a significant shift in the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain and has far-reaching economic and geopolitical implications.

For decades, Russia has been a major supplier of enriched uranium, a processed form of uranium used to power nuclear reactors. The U.S. relies on Russia for roughly a quarter of its enriched uranium needs, feeding the nation's network of 94 nuclear reactors operated by utilities which generate nearly 20% of the country's electricity. This dependence has come under scrutiny in recent years, particularly following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The ban on Russian uranium is a multifaceted response. First and foremost, it aims to cripple a key revenue stream for the Russian government. Uranium exports are a significant source of income for Russia, and by severing this economic tie, the U.S. hopes to weaken Russia's financial capacity to wage war.

Second, the ban serves as a national energy security measure. Relying on a potentially hostile nation for such a critical resource creates vulnerabilities. The possibility of Russia disrupting uranium supplies, either through political pressure or in the event of a wider conflict, is a major concern. Diversifying the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain mitigates this risk.

Third, the ban is intended to revitalize the domestic uranium mining and enrichment industry, building on earlier initiatives such as Trump's uranium order announced previously. The U.S. has historically been a major uranium producer, but environmental concerns and competition from cheaper foreign sources led to a decline in domestic production. The ban, coupled with $2.7 billion in federal funding allocated to expand domestic uranium enrichment capacity, aims to reverse this trend.

The transition away from Russian uranium won't be immediate. The law includes a grace period until mid-August 2024, and waivers can be granted to utilities facing potential shutdowns if alternative suppliers aren't readily available. Finding new sources of enriched uranium will require forging partnerships with other uranium-producing nations like Kazakhstan, Canada on minerals cooperation, and Australia.

The long-term success of this strategy hinges on several factors. First, successfully ramping up domestic uranium production will require overcoming regulatory hurdles and addressing environmental concerns, alongside nuclear innovation to modernize the fuel cycle. Second, securing reliable alternative suppliers at competitive prices is crucial, and supportive policy frameworks such as the Nuclear Innovation Act now in law can help. Finally, ensuring the continued safe and efficient operation of existing nuclear reactors is paramount.

The ban on Russian uranium is a bold move with significant economic and geopolitical implications. While challenges lie ahead, the potential benefits of a more secure and domestically sourced nuclear fuel supply chain are undeniable. The success of this initiative will be closely watched not only by the U.S. but also by other nations seeking to lessen their dependence on Russia for critical resources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Managed Decline of Fossil Fuels aligns oil phaseout with carbon neutrality, leveraging ZEV adoption, solar and wind growth, severance taxes, drilling setbacks, fracking oversight, CARB rules, and CalGEM regulation to deliver a just transition.

Key Points

California's strategy to phase out oil and gas while meeting carbon-neutral goals through policy, regulation, and equity.

✅ Severance taxes fund clean energy and workforce transition.

✅ Setbacks restrict drilling near schools, homes, and hospitals.

✅ CARB and CalGEM tighten fracking oversight and ZEV targets.

California’s energy past is on a collision course with its future. Think of major oil-producing U.S. states, and Texas, Alaska or North Dakota probably come to mind. Although its position relative to other states has been falling for 20 years, California remains the seventh-largest oil-producing state, with 162 million barrels of crude coming up in 2018, translating to tax revenue and jobs.

At the same time, California leads the nation in solar rooftops and electric vehicles on the road by a wide margin and ranking fifth in installed wind capacity. Clean energy is the state’s future, and the state is increasingly exporting its energy policies across the West, influencing regional markets. By law, California must have 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045, and an executive order signed by former Governor Jerry Brown calls for economywide carbon-neutrality by the same year.

So how can the state reconcile its divergent energy path? How should clean-energy-minded lawmakers wind down California’s oil and gas sector in a way that aligns with the state’s long-term climate targets while providing a just transition for the industry’s workforce?

Any efforts to reduce fossil fuel supply must run parallel to aggressive demand-reduction measures such as California’s push to have 5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2030, said Ethan Elkind, director of Berkeley Law's climate program, especially amid debates over keeping the lights on without fossil fuels in the near term. After all, if oil demand in California remains strong, crude from outside the state will simply fill the void.

“If we don’t stop using it, then that supply is going to get here, even if it’s not produced in-state,” Elkind said in an interview.

Lawmakers have a number of options for policies that would draw down and eventually phase out fossil fuel production in California, according to a new report from the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment at the UC Berkeley School of Law, co-authored by Elkind and Ted Lamm.

They could impose a higher price on California's oil production through a "severance" tax or carbon-based fee, with the revenue directed to measures that wean the state from fossil fuels. (California, alone among major oil-producing states, does not have an oil severance tax.)

Lawmakers could establish a minimum drilling setback from schools, playgrounds, homes and other sensitive sites. They could push the state's oil and gas regulator, the California Geologic Energy Management Division, to prioritize environmental and climate concerns.

A major factor holding lawmakers back is, of course, politics, including debates over blackouts and climate policy that shape public perception. Given the state’s clean-energy ambitions, it might surprise non-Californians that the oil and gas industry is one of the Golden State’s most powerful special interest groups.

Overcoming a "third-rail issue" in California politics
The Western States Petroleum Association, the sector’s trade group in California's capital of Sacramento, spent $8.8 million lobbying state policymakers in 2019, more than any other interest group. Over the last five years, the group, which cultivates both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, has spent $43.3 million on lobbying, nearly double the total of the second-largest lobbying spender.

Despite former Governor Brown’s reputation as a climate champion, critics say he was unwilling to forcefully take on the oil and gas industry. However, things may take a different turn under Brown's successor, Governor Gavin Newsom.

In May 2019, when Newsom released California's midyear budget revision (PDF), the governor's office noted the need for "careful study and planning to decrease demand and supply of fossil fuels, while managing the decline in a way that is economically responsible and sustainable.”

Related reliability concerns surfaced as blackouts revealed lapses in power supply across the state.

Writing for the advocacy organization Oil Change International, David Turnbull observed, “This may mark the first time that a sitting governor in California has recognized the need to embark upon a managed decline of fossil fuel supply in the state.”

“It is significant because typically this is one of those third-rail issues, kind of a hot potato that governors don’t even want to touch at all — including Jerry Brown, to a large extent, who really focused much more on the demand side of fuel consumption in the state,” said Berkeley Law’s Elkind.

California's revised budget included $1.5 million for a Transition to a Carbon-Neutral Economy report, which is being prepared by University of California researchers for the California Environmental Protection Agency. In an email, a CalEPA spokesperson said the report is due by the end of this year.

Winding down oil and gas production
Since the release of the revised budget last May, Newsom has taken initial steps to increase oversight of the oil and gas industry. In July 2019, he fired the state’s top oil and gas regulator for issuing too many permits to hydraulically fracture, or frack, wells.

Later in the year, he appointed new leadership to oversee oil and gas regulation in the state, and he signed a package of bills that placed constraints on fossil fuel production. The next month, Newsom halted the approval of new fracking operations until pending permits could be reviewed by a panel of scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) did not resume issuing fracking permit approvals until April of this year.

Not all steps have been in the same direction. This month Newsom dropped a proposal to add dozens of analysts, engineers and geologists at CalGEM, citing COVID-related economic pressure. The move would have increased regulatory oversight on fossil fuel producers and was opposed by the state's oil industry.

Ultimately, more durable measures to wind down fossil fuel supply and demand will require new legislation, even as regulators weigh whether the state needs more power plants to maintain reliability.

A 2019 bill by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance), AB 345, would have codified the minimum 2,500-foot setback for new oil and gas wells. However, before the final vote in the Assembly, the bill’s buffer requirement was dropped and replaced with a requirement for CalGEM “to consider a setback distance of 2,500 feet.” The bill passed the Assembly in January over "no" votes from several moderate Democrats; it now awaits action in the Senate.

A bill previously introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), AB 1745, didn’t even make it that far. Ting’s bill would have required that all new passenger cars registered in the state after January 1, 2040, be zero-emission vehicles (ZEV). The bill died in committee without a vote in April 2018.

But the backing of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), one of the world's most powerful air-quality regulators, could change the political conversation. In March, CARB chair Mary Nichols said she now supports consideration of California establishing a 100 percent zero-emission vehicle sales target by 2030, as policymakers also consider a revamp of electricity rates to clean the grid.

“In the past, I’ve been skeptical about whether that would do more harm than good in terms of the backlash by dealers and others against something that sounded so un-California like,” Nichols said during an online event. “But as time has gone on, I’ve become more convinced that we need to send the longer-term signal about where we’re headed.”

Another complicating factor for California’s political leaders is the lack of a willing federal partner — at least in the short term — in winding down oil and gas production, amid warnings about a looming electricity shortage that could pressure the grid.

Under the Trump administration, the Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 15 million acres of federal land in California, has pushed to open more than 1 million acres of public and private land across eight counties in Central California to fracking. In January 2020, California filed a federal lawsuit to block the move.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany Energy Transition faces offshore wind expansion, grid bottlenecks, and North-South transmission delays, while Nord Stream 2 boosts Russian gas reliance and lignite coal persists amid a nuclear phaseout and rising re-dispatch costs.

Key Points

Germanys shift to renewables faces grid delays, boosting gas via Nord Stream 2 and extending lignite coal use.

✅ Offshore wind grows, but grid congestion curtails turbines.

✅ Nord Stream 2 expands Russian gas supply to German industry.

✅ Lignite coal persists, raising emissions amid nuclear exit.

On a blazing hot August day on Germany’s Baltic Sea coast, a few hundred tourists skip the beach to visit the “Fascination Offshore Wind” exhibition, held in the port of Mukran at the Arkona wind park. They stand facing the sea, gawking at white fiberglass blades, which at 250 feet are longer than the wingspan of a 747 aircraft. Those blades, they’re told, will soon be spinning atop 60 wind-turbine towers bolted to concrete pilings driven deep into the seabed 20 miles offshore. By early 2019, Arkona is expected to generate 385 megawatts, enough electricity to power 400,000 homes.

“We really would like to give the public an idea of what we are going to do here,” says Silke Steen, a manager at Arkona. “To let them say, ‘Wow, impressive!’”

Had the tourists turned their backs to the sea and faced inland, they would have taken in an equally monumental sight, though this one isn’t on the day’s agenda: giant steel pipes coated in gray concrete, stacked five high and laid out in long rows on a stretch of dirt. The port manager tells me that the rows of 40-foot-long, 4-foot-thick pipes are so big that they can be seen from outer space. They are destined for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a colossus that, when completed next year, will extend nearly 800 miles from Russia to Germany, bringing twice the amount of gas that a current pipeline carries.

The two projects, whose cargo yards are within a few hundred feet of each other, provide a contrast between Germany’s dream of renewable energy and the political realities of cheap Russian gas. In 2010, Germany announced an ambitious goal of generating 80 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2050. In 2011, it doubled down on the commitment by deciding to shut down every last nuclear power plant in the country by 2022, as part of a broader coal and nuclear phaseout strategy embraced by policymakers. The German government has paid more than $600 billion to citizens and companies that generate solar and wind power. As a result, the generating capacity from renewable sources has soared: In 2017, a third of the nation’s electricity came from wind, solar, hydropower and biogas, up from 3.6 percent in 1990.

But Germany’s lofty vision has run into a gritty reality: Replacing fossil fuels and nuclear power in one of the largest industrial nations in the world is politically more difficult and expensive than planners thought. It has forced Germany to put the brakes on its ambitious renewables program, ramp up its investments in fossil fuels, amid a renewed nuclear option debate over climate strategy, and, to some extent, put its leadership role in the fight against climate change on hold.

The trouble lies with Germany’s electricity grid. Solar and wind power call for more complex and expensive distribution networks than conventional large power plants do. “What the Germans were good at was getting new technology into the market, like wind and solar power,” said Arne Jungjohann, author of Energy Democracy: Germany’s ENERGIEWENDE to Renewables. To achieve its goals, “Germany needs to overhaul its whole grid.”

The North-South Conundrum

The boom in wind power has created an unanticipated mismatch between supply and demand. Big wind turbines, especially offshore plants such as Arkona, produce powerful, concentrated gusts of energy. That’s good when the factory that needs that energy is nearby and the wind kicks up during working hours. It’s another matter when factories are hundreds of miles away. In Germany, wind farms tend to be located in the blustery north. Many of the nation’s big factories lie in the south, which also happens to be where most of the country’s nuclear plants are being mothballed.

Getting that power from north to south is problematic. On windy days, northern wind farms generate too much energy for the grid to handle. Power lines get overloaded. To cope, grid operators ask wind farms to disconnect their turbines from the grid—those elegant blades that tourists so admired sit idle. To ensure a supply of power, operators employ backup generators at great expense. These so-called re-dispatching costs ran to 1.4 billion euros ($1.6 billion) last year.

The solution is to build more power transmission lines to take the excess wind from northern wind farms to southern factories. A grid expansion project is underway to do exactly that. Nearly 5,000 miles of new transmission lines, at a cost of billions of euros, will be paid for by utility customers. So far, less than a fifth of the lines have been built.

The grid expansion is “catastrophically behind schedule,” Energy Minister Peter Altmaier told the Handelsblatt business newspaper in August. Among the setbacks: citizens living along the route of four high-voltage power lines have demanded the cables be buried underground, which has added to the time and expense. The lines won’t be finished before 2025—three years after Germany’s nuclear shutdown is due to be completed.

With this backlog, the government has put the brakes on wind power, reducing the number of new contracts for farms and curtailing the amount it pays for renewable energy. “In the past, we have focused too much on the mere expansion of renewable energy capacity,” Joachim Pfeiffer, a spokesman for the Christian Democratic Union, wrote to Newsweek. “We failed to synchronize this expansion of generation with grid expansion.”

Advocates of renewables are up in arms, accusing the government of suffocating their industry and making planning impossible. Thousands of people lost their jobs in the wind industry, according to Wolfram Axthelm, CEO of the German Wind Energy Association. “For 2019 and 2020, we see a highly problematic situation for the industry,” he wrote in an email.

Fueling the Gap

Nord Stream 2, by contrast, is proceeding according to schedule. A beige and black barge, Castoro 10, hauls dozens of lengths of giant pipe off Germany’s Baltic Sea coast, where a welding machine connects them for lowering onto the seabed. The $11 billion project is funded by Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom and five European investors, at no direct cost to the German taxpayer. It is slated to cross the territorial waters of five countries—Germany, Russia, Finland, Sweden and Denmark. All but Denmark have approved the route. “We have good reason to believe that after four governments said yes, that Denmark will also approve the pipeline,” says Nord Stream 2 spokesman Jens Mueller.

Construction of the pipeline off Finland began in September, and the gas is expected to start flowing in late 2019, giving Russia leverage to increase its share of the European gas market. It already provides a third of the gas used in the EU and will likely provide more after the Netherlands stops its gas production in 2030. President Donald Trump has called the pipeline “a very bad thing for NATO” and said that “Germany is totally controlled by Russia.” U.S. senators have threatened sanctions against companies involved in the project. Ukraine and Poland are concerned the new pipeline will make older pipelines in their territories irrelevant.

German leaders are also wary of dependence on Russia but are under considerable pressure to deliver energy to industry. Indeed, among the pipeline’s investors are German companies that want to run their factories, like BASF’s Wintershall subsidiary and Uniper, the German utility. “It’s not that Germany is naive,” says Kirsten Westphal, an energy expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. It’s just pragmatic. “Economically, the judgment is that yes, this gas will be needed, we have an import gap to fill.”

The electricity transmission problem has also opened an opportunity for lignite coal, as coal generation in Germany remains significant, the most carbon-intensive fuel available and the source for nearly a quarter of Germany’s power. Mining companies are expanding their operations in coal-rich regions to strip out the fuel while it is still relevant. In the village of Pödelwitz, 155 miles south of Berlin, most houses feature a white sign with the logo of Mibrag, the German mining giant, which has paid nearly all the 130 residents to relocate. The company plans to level the village and scrape lignite that lies below the soil.

A resurgence in coal helped raise carbon emissions in 2015 and 2016 (2017 saw a slight decline), maintaining Germany’s place as Europe’s largest carbon emitter. Chancellor Angela Merkel has scrapped her pledge to slash carbon emissions to 40 percent of 1990 levels by the year 2020. Several members have threatened to resign from her policy commission on coal if the government allows utility company RWE to mine for lignite in Hambach Forest.

Only a few years ago, during the Paris climate talks, Germany led the EU in pushing for ambitious plans to curb emissions. Now, it seems to be having second thoughts. Recently, the European Union’s climate chief, Miguel Arias Cañete, suggested EU nations step up their commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 45 percent of 1990 levels instead of 40 percent by 2030. “I think we should first stick to the goals we have already set ourselves,” Merkel replied, even as a possible nuclear phaseout U-turn is debated, “I don’t think permanently setting ourselves new goals makes any sense.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

India spot electricity prices surged on Q3 demand, lifting power tariffs in the spot market as discoms scrambled for supply; Sembcorp SGPL boosted PLF and short-term PPA realizations, benefiting from INR per kWh peaks.

Key Points

India spot electricity prices hit Q3 records amid demand spikes, lifting tariffs and aiding Sembcorp SGPL via PLF gains.

✅ Record 10.6 cents/kWh average; 15-minute peak 20.7 cents/kWh

✅ SGPL shifted output to short-term PPA at 7.3 cents/kWh

✅ PLF ramped above 90%, cutting core losses by 30-40%

Electricity prices in India, now the third-largest electricity producer globally, bolted to a record high of 10.6 cents/kWh (INR5.1/kWh) in Q3.

A jolt in Indian spot electricity prices could save Sembcorp Industries' Indian business from further losses, even though demand has occasionally slumped in recent years, UOB Kay Hian said.

The firm said spot electricity prices in India bolted to a record high of 10.6 cents/kWh (INR5.1/kWh) in Q3 and even hit a 15-minute peak of 20.7 cents/kWh (9.9/kWh). The spike was due to a power supply crunch on higher electricity demand from power distribution companies, alongside higher imported coal volumes as domestic supplies shrank.

As an effect, Sembcorp Industries' Sembcorp Gayatri Power Limited's (SGPL) losses of $26m in Q1 and $29m in Q2 could narrow down by as much as 30-40%.

On a net basis, SGPL will recognise a significantly higher electricity tariff in 3Q17. By tactically shutting down its Unit #3 for maintenance, Unit #4 effectively had its generation contracted out at the higher short-term PPA tariff of around 7.3 cents/kWh (Rs3.5/kWh).

SGPL also capitalised on the price spike in 3Q17 as it ramped up its plant load factor (PLF) to more than 90%.

“On the back of this, coupled with the effects of reduced finance costs, we expect SGPL’s 3Q17 quarterly core loss to shrink by 30-40% from previous quarters,” UOB Kay Hian said.

Whilst electricity prices have corrected to 7.1 cents/kWh (INR3.4/kWh), the firm said it could still remain elevated on structural factors, even as coal and electricity shortages ease nationwide.

Sembcorp Industries' India operations brought in a robust performance for Q3. PLF for Thermal Powertech Corporation India Limited (TPCIL) hit 91%, whilst it reached 73% for SGPL, echoing the broader trend of thermal PLF up across the sector.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Earth Hour BC highlights BC Hydro data on electricity use, energy savings, and participation in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island amid climate change and hydroelectric power dynamics.

Key Points

BC observance tracking BC Hydro electricity use and conservation during Earth Hour, amid hydroelectric power dominance.

✅ BC Hydro reports rising electricity use during Earth Hour 2018

✅ Savings fell from 2% in 2008 to near zero province-wide

✅ Hydroelectric grid yields low GHG emissions in BC

For the first time since it began tracking electricity use in the province during Earth Hour, BC Hydro said customers used more power during the 60-minute period when lights are expected to dim, mirroring all-time high electricity demand seen recently.

The World Wildlife Fund launched Earth Hour in Sydney, Australia in 2007. Residents and businesses there turned off lights and non-essential power as a symbol to mark the importance of combating climate change.

The event was adopted in B.C. the next year and, as part of that, BC Hydro began tracking the megawatt hours saved.

#google#

In 2008, residents and businesses achieved a two per cent savings in electricity use. But since then, BC Hydro says the savings have plummeted.

The event was adopted in B.C. the next year and, as part of that, BC Hydro began tracking the megawatt hours saved.

In 2008, residents and businesses achieved a two per cent savings in electricity use. But since then, BC Hydro says the savings have plummeted, as record-breaking demand in 2021 and beyond changed consumption patterns.

Lights on

For Earth Hour this year, which took place 8:30-9:30 p.m. on March 24, BC Hydro says electricity use in the Lower Mainland increased by 0.5 per cent, even as it activated a winter payment plan to help customers manage bills. On Vancouver Island it increased 0.6 per cent.

In the province's southern Interior and northern Interior, power use remained the same during the event.

On Friday, the utility released a report called: "lights out". Why Earth Hour is dimming in BC. which explores the decline of energy savings related to Earth Hour in the province.

The WWF says the way in which hydro companies track electricity savings during Earth Hour is not an accurate measure of participation, and tracking of emerging loads like crypto mining electricity use remains opaque, and noted that more countries than ever are turning off lights for the event.

For 2018, the WWF shifted the focus of Earth Hour to the loss of wildlife across the globe.

BC Hydro says in its report that the symbolism of Earth Hour is still important to British Columbians, but almost all power generation in B.C. is hydroelectric, though recent drought conditions have required operational adjustments, and only accounts for one per cent of greenhouse gas emissions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Ireland 65% Renewable Grid Capability showcases world leading integration of intermittent wind and solar, smart grid flexibility, EU-SysFlex learnings, and the Celtic Interconnector to enhance stability, exports, and energy security across the European grid.

Key Points

Ireland can run its isolated power system with 65% variable wind and solar, informing EU grid integration and scaling.

✅ 65% system non-synchronous penetration on an isolated grid

✅ EU-SysFlex roadmap supports large-scale renewables integration

✅ Celtic Interconnector adds 700MW capacity and stability

Ireland is now able to cope with 65% of its electricity coming from intermittent electricity sources like wind and solar, as highlighted by Ireland's green electricity outlook today – an expertise Energy Minister Denish Naugthen believes can be replicated on a larger scale as Europe moves towards 50% renewable power by 2030.

Denis Naughten is an Irish politician who serves as Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment since May 2016.

Naughten spoke to editor Frédéric Simon on the sidelines of a EURACTIV event in the European  Parliament to mark the launch of EU-SysFlex, an EU-funded project, which aims to create a long-term roadmap for the large-scale integration of renewable energy on electricity grids.

What is the reason for your presence in Brussels today and the main message that you came to deliver?

The reason that I’m here today is that we’re going to share the knowledge what we have developed in Ireland, right across Europe. We are now the global leaders in taking variable renewable electricity like wind and solar onto our grid.

We can take a 65% loading on to the grid today – there is no other isolated grid in the world that can do that. We’re going to get up to 75% by 2020. This is a huge technical challenge for any electricity grid and it’s going to be a problem that is going to grow and grow across Europe, even as Europe's electricity demand rises in the coming years, as we move to 50% renewables onto our grid by 2030.

And our knowledge and understanding can be used to help solve the problems right across Europe. And the sharing of technology can mean that we can make our own grid in Ireland far more robust.

What is the contribution of Ireland when it comes to the debate which is currently taking place in Europe about raising the ambition on renewable energy and make the grid fit for that? What are the main milestones that you see looking ahead for Europe and Ireland?

It is a challenge for Europe to do this, but we’ve done it Ireland. We have been able to take a 65% loading of wind power on our grid, with Irish wind generation hitting records recently, so we can replicate that across Europe.

Yes it is about a much larger scale and yes, we need to work collaboratively together, reflecting common goals for electricity networks worldwide – not just in dealing with the technical solutions that we have in Ireland at the fore of this technology, but also replicating them on a larger scale across Europe.

And I believe we can do that, I believe we can use the learnings that we have developed in Ireland and amplify those to deal with far bigger challenges that we have on the European electricity grid.

Trialogue talks have started at European level about the reform of the electricity market. There is talk about decentralised energy generation coming from small-scale producers. Do you see support from all the member states in doing that? And how do you see the challenges ahead on a political level to get everyone on board on such a vision?

I don’t believe there is a political problem here in relation to this. I think there is unanimity across Europe that we need to support consumers in producing electricity for self-consumption and to be able to either store or put that back into the grid.

The issues here are more technical in nature. And how you support a grid to do that. And who actually pays for that. Ireland is very much a microcosm of the pan-European grid and how we can deal with those challenges.

What we’re doing at the moment in Ireland is looking at a pilot scheme to support consumers to generate their own electricity to meet their own needs and to be able to store that on site.

I think in the years to come a lot of that will be actually done with more battery storage in the form of electric vehicles and people would be able to transport that energy from one location to another as and when it’s needed. In the short term, we’re looking at some novel solutions to support consumers producing their own electricity and meeting their own needs.

So I think this is complex from a technical point of view at the moment, I don’t think there is an unwillingness from a political perspective to do it, and I think working with this particular initiative and other initiatives across Europe, we can crack those technical challenges.

To conclude, last year, the European Commission allocated €4 million to a project to link up the Irish electricity grid to France. How is that going to benefit Ireland? And is that related to worries that you may have over Brexit?

The plan, which is called the Celtic Interconnector, is to link France with the Irish electricity grid. It’s going to have a capacity of about 700MW. It allows us to provide additional stability on our grid and enables us to take more renewables onto the grid. It also allows us to export renewable electricity onto the main European grid as well, and provide stability to the French network.

So it’s a benefit to both individual networks as well as allowing far more renewables onto the grid. We’ve been working quite closely with RTE in France and with both regulators. We’re hoping to get the support of the European Commission to move it now from the design stage onto the construction stage. And I understand discussions are ongoing with the Commission at present with regard to that.

And that is going to diversify potential sources of electricity coming in for Ireland in a situation which is pretty uncertain because of Brexit, correct?

Well, I don’t think there is uncertainty because of Brexit in that we have agreements with the United Kingdom, we’re still going to be part of the broader energy family in relation to back-and-forth supply across the Irish Sea, with grid reinforcements in Scotland underscoring reliability needs.  But I think it is important in terms of meeting the 15% interconnectivity that the EU has set in relation to electricity.

And also in relation of providing us with an alternative support in relation to electricity supply outside of Britain. Because Britain is now leaving the European Union and I think this is important from a political point of view, and from a broader energy security point of view. But we don’t see it in the short term as causing threats in relation to security of supply.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News