Rhode Island power bills drop 16.5 per cent

UK Coal Phase-Out marks record-low coal generation as the UK grid shifts to renewable power, wind farms, and a net zero trajectory, slashing carbon emissions and supporting cleaner EV charging across the electricity system.

Key Points

UK Coal Phase-Out ends coal-fired electricity nationwide, powered by renewables and net zero policy to cut grid carbon.

✅ Coal's Q2 share fell to 0.7%, a record low

✅ Renewables up 12% with Beatrice wind farm

✅ EV charging grows cleaner as grid decarbonizes

The share of coal in the UK’s electricity system has fallen to record lows in recent months, alongside a coal-free power record, according to government data.

The figures show electricity generated by the UK’s most polluting power plants made up an average of 0.7% of the total in the second quarter of this year, a shift underway since wind first outpaced coal in 2016 across the UK. The amount of coal used to power the electricity grid fell by almost two-thirds compared with the same months last year.

A government spokesperson said coal-generated energy “will soon be a distant memory” as the UK moves towards becoming a net zero emissions economy, despite signs that low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 in some analyses.

“This new record low is a result of our world-leading low-carbon energy industry, which provided more than half of our energy last year and continues to go from strength to strength as we aim to end our contribution to climate change entirely by 2050,” the spokesperson said.

The UK electricity market is on track to end coal power after 142 years by the government’s target date of 2025.

This year three major energy companies have announced plans to close coal-fired power plants in the UK, which would leave only four remaining after the coming winter, ahead of the last coal power station going offline nationwide.

RWE said this month it would close the Aberthaw B power station in south Wales, its last UK coal plant, after the winter. SSE will close the Fiddler’s Ferry plant near Warrington, Cheshire, in March 2020, and EDF Energy will shutter the Cottam coal plant in September.

So far this year the UK has gone more than 3,000 hours without using coal for power, including a full week without coal earlier in the year – nearly five times more than the whole of 2017.

Meanwhile, the government’s data shows that renewable energy climbed by 12% from the second quarter of last year, boosted by the startup of the Beatrice windfarm in the Moray Firth in Scotland, and the UK leading the G20 in wind power share in recent assessments.

The cleaner power system could accelerate carbon savings from the UK’s roads, too, as more drivers opt for electric vehicles. A study by Imperial College London for the energy company Drax found that the UK’s increasingly low-carbon energy system meant electric cars were a greener option even when taking into account the carbon emissions produced by making car batteries.

Dr Iain Staffell, of Imperial College London, said: “An electric vehicle in the UK simply cannot be more polluting than its petrol or diesel equivalent – even when taking into account the upfront carbon cost of manufacturing their batteries. Any EV bought today could be emitting just a tenth of what a petrol car would in as little as five years’ time, as the electricity it uses to charge comes from an increasingly low-carbon mix.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis highlights nuclear power vs coal and natural gas, renewables and hydropower limits, carbon emissions, energy security, and baseload reliability during Russia-related supply shocks and winter demand.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis weighs reactor extensions vs coal revival to bolster security, curb emissions.

✅ Coal plants restarted; nuclear shutdown stays on schedule.

✅ Energy security prioritized amid Russian gas supply cuts.

✅ Emissions likely rise despite renewables expansion.

Peel away the politics and the passion, the doomsaying and the denialism, and climate change largely boils down to this: energy. To avoid the chances of catastrophic climate change while ensuring the world can continue to grow — especially for poor people who live in chronically energy-starved areas — we’ll need to produce ever more energy from sources that emit little or no greenhouse gases.

It’s that simple — and, of course, that complicated.

Zero-carbon sources of renewable energy like wind and solar have seen tremendous increases in capacity and equally impressive decreases in price in recent years, while the decades-old technology of hydropower is still what the International Energy Agency calls the “forgotten giant of low-carbon electricity.”

And then there’s nuclear power. Viewed strictly through the lens of climate change, nuclear power can claim to be a green dream, even as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy most.

Unlike coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions when they generate electricity, and over the past 50 years they’ve reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 60 gigatonnes. Unlike solar or wind, nuclear plants aren’t intermittent, and they require significantly less land area per megawatt produced. Unlike hydropower — which has reached its natural limits in many developed countries, including the US — nuclear plants don’t require environmentally intensive dams.

As accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown, when nuclear power goes wrong, it can go really wrong. But newer plant designs reduce the risk of such catastrophes, which themselves tend to garner far more attention than the steady stream of deaths from climate change and air pollution linked to the normal operation of conventional power plants.

So you might imagine that those who see climate change as an unparalleled existential threat would cheer the development of new nuclear plants and support the extension of nuclear power already in service.

In practice, however, that’s often not the case, as recent events in Germany underline.

When is a Green not green?
The Russian war in Ukraine has made a mess of global energy markets, but perhaps no country has proven more vulnerable than Germany, reigniting debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany among policymakers.

At the start of the year, Russian exports supplied more than half of Germany’s natural gas, along with significant portions of its oil and coal imports. Since the war began, Russia has severely curtailed the flow of gas to Germany, putting the country in a state of acute energy crisis, with fears growing as next winter looms.

With little natural gas supplies of the country’s own, and its heavily supported renewable sector unable to fully make up the shortfall, German leaders faced a dilemma. To maintain enough gas reserves to get the country through the winter, they could try to put off the closure of Germany’s last three remaining nuclear reactors temporarily, which were scheduled to shutter by the end of 2022 as part of Germany’s post-Fukushima turn against nuclear power, and even restart already closed reactors.

Or they could try to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants, and make up some of the electricity deficit with Germany’s still-ample coal reserves.

Based on carbon emissions alone, you’d presumably go for the nuclear option. Coal is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, responsible for a fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions — more than any other single source — as well as a soup of conventional air pollutants. Nuclear power produces none of these.

German legislators saw it differently. Last week, the country’s parliament, with the backing of members of the Green Party in the coalition government, passed emergency legislation to reopen coal-powered plants, as well as further measures to boost the production of renewable energy. There would be no effort to restart closed nuclear power plants, or even consider a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout for the last active reactors.

“The gas storage tanks must be full by winter,” Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister and a member of the Green Party, said in June, echoing arguments that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue for the coming winter.

Partially as a result of that prioritization, Germany — which has already seen carbon emissions rise over the past two years, missing its ambitious emissions targets — will emit even more carbon in 2022.

To be fair, restarting closed nuclear power plants is a far more complex undertaking than lighting up old coal plants. Plant operators had only bought enough uranium to make it to the end of 2022, so nuclear fuel supplies are set to run out regardless.

But that’s also the point. Germany, which views itself as a global leader on climate, is grasping at the most carbon-intensive fuel source in part because it made the decision in 2011 to fully turn its back on nuclear for good at the time, enshrining what had been a planned phase-out into law.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

BC Hydro Winter Payment Plan lets customers spread electricity bills over six months during cold weather, easing costs amid colder-than-average temperatures in British Columbia, with low-income conservation support, energy-saving kits, and insulation upgrades.

Key Points

Allows BC Hydro customers to spread winter electricity bills over six months, with added low-income efficiency support.

✅ Spread Dec-Mar bills across six months

✅ Eases costs during colder-than-average temperatures

✅ Includes low-income conservation and energy-saving kits

As colder temperatures set in across the province again this weekend, BC Hydro says it is activating its winter payment plan to give customers the opportunity to spread out their electricity bills as demand can reach record levels during extreme cold periods.

"Our meteorologists are predicting colder-than-average temperatures will continue over the next of couple of months and we want to provide customers with help to manage their payments," said Chris O'Riley, BC Hydro's president.

All BC Hydro customers will be able to spread payments from the billing period spanning Dec. 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018 over a six-month period.

Cold weather in the second half of December 2017 led to surging electricity demand that was higher than the previous 10-year average and has at times hit all-time highs during peak usage periods, according to BC Hydro.

Hydro operations also respond to summer conditions, as drought and low rainfall can force adjustments in power generation strategies.

People who heat their homes with electricity — about 40 per cent of British Columbians —  have the highest overall bills in the province, $197 more in December than in July, when air conditioning use can affect energy costs.

This is the second year the Crown corporation has activated a cold-weather payment plan, part of broader customer assistance programs it offers.  

BC Hydro has also increased funding for its low-income conservation programs by $2.2 million for a total of $10 million over the next three years. 

The low-income program provides energy-saving kits that include things like free energy assessments, insulation upgrades and weather stripping. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Lebanon Power Barge Controversy spotlights Karadeniz Energy's Esra Sultan, Lebanon's electricity crisis, prolonged blackouts, and sectarian politics as Amal and Hezbollah clash over Zahrani vs Jiyeh docking and allocation across regions.

Key Points

A political dispute over the Esra Sultan power ship, its docking, and power allocation amid Lebanon's chronic blackouts.

✅ Karadeniz Energy lent a third barge at below-market rates.

✅ Docking disputes: Zahrani refused; Jiyeh limited; Zouq connected.

✅ Amal vs Hezbollah split exposes sectarian energy politics.

It was supposed to be a goodwill gesture from an energy company in Turkey.

This summer, the Karadeniz Energy Group lent Lebanon a floating power station to generate electricity at below-market rates to help ease the strain on the country's woefully undermaintained power sector.

Instead, the barge's arrival opened a Pandora's box of partisan mudslinging in a country hobbled by political sectarianism and dysfunction.

There have been rows over where it should dock, how to allocate its 235 megawatts of power, and even what to call the barge, echoing controversies like the Maine electric line debate that pit local politics against energy needs.

It has even driven a wedge between Lebanon's two dominant parties among Shiite Muslims: Amal and the militant group Hezbollah.

Amal, which has held the parliament speaker's seat since 1992, revealed sensationally last week it had refused to allow the boat to dock in a port in the predominantly Shiite south, even though it is one of the most underserved regions of Lebanon.

Power outages in the south can stretch on for more than 12 hours a day, much like the Gaza electricity crisis, according to regional observers.

Hezbollah, which normally stands pat with Amal in political matters, issued an exceptional statement that it had nothing to do with the matter of the barge at Zahrani port. A Hezbollah lawmaker went further to say his party disagreed on the issue with Amal.

Ali Hassan Khalil, Lebanon's Finance Minister and a leading Amal party member, said southerners wanted a permanent power station, not a stop-gap solution, in an implied dig at the rival Free Patriotic Movement, a Christian party that runs the Energy Ministry.

But critics seized on the statement as confirmation that Amal's leaders were in bed with the operators of private generators, who have been making fortunes selling electricity during blackouts at many times the state price.

"For decades there's been nothing stopping them from building a power plant," said Mohammad Obeid, a former Amal party official, in an interview with Lebanon's Al Jadeed TV station.

"Now there's a barge that's coming for three months to provide a few more hours of electricity -- and that's the issue?"

Hassan Khalil, reached by phone, refused to comment.

Nabih Berri, Amal's chief and Lebanon's parliament speaker, who has long been the subject of critical coverage from Al Jadeed's, sued the TV channel for libel on Wednesday for its reporting.

Energy Minister Cesar Abi Khalil, a Christian, lashed out at Amal, saying the ministry even changed the barge's name from Ayse, Turkish for Aisha, a name associated in Lebanon with Sunnis, to Esra Sultan, which does not carry any Shiite or Sunni connotations, to try to get it to dock in Zahrani.

Karadeniz said the barge was renamed "out of courtesy and respect to local customs and sensitivities."

"Ayse is a very common Turkish name, where such preferences are not as sensitive as in Lebanon," it said in a statement to The Associated Press.

Finally, on July 18, the barge docked in Jiyeh, a harbour south of Beirut but north of Zahrani, and in a religiously mixed Muslim area.

But two weeks later it was unmoored again, after Abi Khalil, the energy minister, said the infrastructure at Jiyeh could only handle 30 megawatts of the Esra Sultan's 235 capacity, and upgrades such as burying subsea cables are expensive.

With Zahrani closed to the Esra Sultan, it could only go to Zouq Mikhael, a port in the Christian-dominated Kesrouan region in the north, where it was plugged to the grid Tuesday night, giving the region almost 24 hours of electricity a day.

Lebanon has been contending with rolling blackouts since the days of its 1975-1990 civil war. Successive governments have failed to agree on a permanent solution for the chronic electricity failures, largely because of profiteering, endemic corruption and lack of political will, despite periodic pushes for electricity sector reform in Lebanon over the years.

In 2013, the Energy Ministry contracted with Karadeniz to buy electricity from a pair of its barges, which are still docked in Jiyeh and Zouq Mikhael.

This summer, Abi Khalil signed a new contract with Karadeniz to keep the barges for another three years. As part of the deal, Karadeniz agreed to lend Lebanon the third barge, the Esra Sultan, to produce electricity for three months at no cost - Lebanon would just have to pay for the fuel.

The company said Lebanon's internal squabbles do not affect how long the Esra Sultan would stay in Lebanon, even amid wider sector volatility and the pandemic's impact highlighted in a recent financial update. It arrived on July 18 and it will leave on Oct. 18, it said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Blackouts expose grid reliability risks as PG&E deenergizes lines during high winds. Mandated solar and wind displace dispatchable natural gas, straining ISO load balancing, transmission maintenance, and battery storage planning amid escalating wildfire liability.

Key Points

California grid shutoffs stem from wildfire risk, renewables, and deferred transmission maintenance under mandates.

✅ PG&E deenergizes lines to reduce wildfire ignition during high winds.

✅ Mandated solar and wind displace dispatchable gas, raising balancing costs.

✅ Storage, reliability pricing, and grid upgrades are needed to stabilize supply.

California is again facing widespread blackouts this season. Politicians are scrambling to assign blame to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) a heavily regulated utility that can only do what the politically appointed regulators say it can do. In recent years this has meant building a bunch of solar and wind projects, while decommissioning reliable sources of power and scrimping on power line maintenance and upgrades.

The blackouts are connected with the legal liability from old and improperly maintained power lines being blamed for sparking fires—in hopes that deenergizing the grid during high winds reduces the likelihood of fires. 

How did the land of Silicon Valley and Hollywood come to have developing world electricity?

California’s Democratic majority, from Gov. Gavin Newsom to the solidly progressive legislature, to the regulators they appoint, have demanded huge increases in renewable energy. Renewable electricity targets have been pushed up, and policymakers are weighing a revamp of electricity rates to clean the grid, with the state expected to reach a goal of 33% of its power from renewable sources, mostly solar and wind, by next year, and 60% of its electricity from renewables by 2030.

In 2018, 31% of the electricity Californians purchased at the retail level came from approved renewables. But when rooftop solar is added to the mix, about 34% of California’s electricity came from renewables in 2018. Solar photovoltaic (PV) systems installed “behind-the-meter” (BTM) displace utility-supplied generation, but still affect the grid at large, as electricity must be generated at the moment it is consumed. PV installations in California grew 20% from 2017 to 2018, benefiting from the state’s Self-Generation Incentive Program that offers hefty rebates through 2025, as well as a 30% federal tax credit.

Increasingly large amounts of periodic, renewable power comes at a price—the more there is, the more difficult it is to keep the power grid stable and energized. Since electricity must be consumed the instant it is generated, and because wind and solar produce what they will whenever they do, the rest of the grid’s power producers—mostly natural gas plants—have to make up any differences between supply and immediate demand. This load balancing is vital, because without it, the grid will crash and widespread blackouts will ensue.

California often produces a surplus of mandated solar and wind power, generated for 5 to 8 cents per kilowatt hour. This power displaces dispatchable power from natural gas, coal and nuclear plants, resulting in reliable power plants spending less time online and driving up electricity prices as the plants operate for fewer hours of the day. Subsidized and mandated solar power, along with a law passed in California in 2006 (SB 1638) that bans the renewal of coal-fired power contracts, has placed enormous economic pressure on the Western region’s coal power plants—among them, the nation’s largest, Navajo Generating Station. As these plants go off line, the Western power grid will become increasingly unstable. Eventually, the states that share their electric power in the Western Interconnect may have to act to either subsidize dispatchable power or place a value on reliability—something that was taken for granted in the growth of the America’s electrical system and its regulatory scheme.

California law regarding electricity explicitly states that “a violation of the Public Utilities Act is a crime” and that it is “…the intent of the Legislature to provide for the evolution of the ISO (California’s Independent System Operator—the entity that manages California’s grid) into a regional organization to promote the development of regional electricity transmission markets in the western states.” In other words, California expects to dictate how the Western grid operates.

One last note as to what drives much of California’s energy policy: politics. California State Senator Kevin de León (the author served with him in the State Assembly) drafted SB 350, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act. It became law in 2015. Sen. de León followed up with SB 100 in 2018, signed into law weeks before the 2018 election. SB 100 increased California’s renewable portfolio standard to 60% by 2030 and further requires all the state’s electricity to come from carbon-free sources by 2045, a capstone of the state’s climate policies that factor into the blackout debate.  

Sen. de León used his environmental credentials to burnish his run for the U.S. Senate against Sen. Dianne Feinstein, eventually capturing the endorsements of the California Democratic Party and billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, now running for president. Feinstein and de León advanced to the general in California’s jungle primary, where Feinstein won reelection 54.2% to 45.8%.

De León may have lost his race for the U.S. Senate, but his legacy will live on in increasingly unaffordable electricity and blackouts, not only in California, but in the rest of the Western United States—unless federal or state regulators begin to place a value on reliability. This could be done by requiring utility scale renewable power providers to guarantee dispatchable power, as policymakers try to avert a looming shortage of firm capacity, either through purchase agreements with thermal power plants or through the installation of giant and costly battery farms or other energy storage means.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News