Endesa the new utility power in Ireland

Hinkley Point C delays highlight EDF cost overruns, energy security risks, and wholesale power prices, complicating UK net zero plans, Sizewell C financing, and small modular reactor adoption across the grid.

Key Points

Delays at EDF's 3.2GW Hinkley Point C push operations to 2031, lift costs to £46bn, and risk pricier UK electricity.

✅ First unit may slip to 2031; second unit date unclear.

✅ LSEG sees 6% wholesale price impact in 2029-2032.

✅ Sizewell C replicates design; SMR contracts expected soon.

Vincent de Rivaz, former CEO of EDF, confidently announced in 2016 the commencement of the UK's first nuclear power station since the 1990s, Hinkley Point C. However, despite milestones such as the reactor roof installation, recent developments have belied this optimism. The French state-owned utility EDF recently disclosed further delays and cost overruns for the 3.2 gigawatt plant in Somerset.

These complications at Hinkley Point C, which is expected to power 6 million homes, have sparked new concerns about the UK's energy strategy and its ambition to decarbonize the grid by 2050.

The UK government's plan to achieve net zero by 2050 includes a significant role for nuclear energy, reflecting analyses that net-zero may not be possible without nuclear and aiming to increase capacity from the current 5.88GW to 24GW by mid-century.

Simon Virley, head of energy at KPMG in the UK, stressed the importance of nuclear energy in transitioning to a net zero power system, echoing industry calls for multiple new stations to meet climate goals. He pointed out that failing to build the necessary capacity could lead to increased reliance on gas.

Hinkley Point C is envisioned as the pioneer in a new wave of nuclear plants intended to augment and replace Britain's existing nuclear fleet, jointly managed by EDF and Centrica. Nuclear power contributed about 14 percent of the UK's electricity in 2022, even as Europe is losing nuclear power across the continent. However, with the planned closure of four out of five plants by March 2028 and rising electricity demand, there is concern about potential power price increases.

Rob Gross, director of the UK Energy Research Centre, emphasized the link between energy security and affordability, highlighting the risk of high electricity prices if reliance on expensive gas increases.

The first 1.6GW reactor at Hinkley Point C, initially set for operation in 2027, may now face delays until 2031, even after first reactor installation milestones were reported. The in-service date for the second unit remains uncertain, with project costs possibly reaching £46bn.

LSEG analysts predict that these delays could increase wholesale power prices by up to 6 percent between 2029 and 2032, assuming the second unit becomes operational in 2033.

Martin Young, an analyst at Investec, warned of the price implications of removing a large power station from the supply side.

In response to these delays, EDF is exploring the extension of its four oldest plants. Jerry Haller, EDF’s former decommissioning director, had previously expressed skepticism about extending the life of the advanced gas-cooled reactor fleet, but EDF has since indicated more positive inspection results. The company had already decided to keep the Heysham 1 and Hartlepool plants operational until at least 2026.

Nevertheless, the issues at Hinkley Point C raise doubts about the UK's ability to meet its 2050 nuclear build target of 24GW.

Previous delays at Hinkley were attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, but EDF now cites engineering problems, similar to those experienced at other European power stations using the same technology.

The next major UK nuclear project, Sizewell C in Suffolk, will replicate Hinkley Point C's design, aligning with the UK's green industrial revolution agenda. EDF and the UK government are currently seeking external investment for the £20bn project.

Compared with Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C's financing model involves exposing billpayers to some risk of cost overruns. This, coupled with EDF's track record, could affect investor confidence.

Additionally, the UK government is supporting the development of small modular reactors, while China's nuclear program continues on a steady track, with contracts expected to be awarded later this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Texas EV Registration Fee adds a $200 annual charge under Senate Bill 505, offsetting lost gasoline tax revenue to the State Highway Fund, impacting electric vehicle owners at registration and renewals across Texas.

Key Points

A $200 yearly charge on electric vehicles to replace lost gasoline tax revenue and support Texas Highway Fund road work.

✅ $200 due at registration or renewal; $400 upfront on new EVs.

✅ Enacted by Senate Bill 505 to offset lost gasoline tax revenue.

✅ Advocates propose mileage-based fees; limited $2,500 rebates exist.

Plano resident Tony Federico bought his Tesla five years ago in part because he hated spending lots of money on gas, and Supercharger billing changes have also influenced charging expenses. But that financial calculus will change slightly on Sept. 1, when Texas will start charging electric vehicle drivers an additional fee of $200 each year.

“It just seems like it’s arbitrary, with no real logic behind it,” said Federico, 51, who works in information technology. “But I’m going to have to pay it.”

Earlier this year, state lawmakers passed Senate Bill 505, which requires electric vehicle owners to pay the fee when they register a vehicle or renew their registration, even as fights for control over charging continue among utilities, automakers and retailers. It’s being imposed because lawmakers said EV drivers weren’t paying their fair share into a fund that helps cover road construction and repairs across Texas.

The cost will be especially high for those who purchase a new electric vehicle and have to pay two years of registration, or $400, up front.

Texas agencies estimated in a 2020 report that the state lost an average of $200 per year in federal and state gasoline tax dollars when an electric vehicle replaced a gas-fueled one. The agencies called the fee “the most straightforward” remedy.

Gasoline taxes go to the State Highway Fund, which the Texas Department of Transportation calls its “primary funding source.” Electric vehicle drivers don’t pay those taxes, though, because they don’t use gasoline.

Still, EV drivers do use the roads. And while electric vehicles make up a tiny portion of cars in Texas for now, that fraction is expected to increase, raising concerns about state power grids in the years ahead.

Many environmental and consumer advocates agreed with lawmakers that EV drivers should pay into the highway fund but argued over how much, and debates over fairer vehicle taxes are surfacing abroad as well.

Some thought the state should set the fee lower to cover only the lost state tax dollars, rather than both the state and federal money, because federal officials may devise their own scheme. Others argued the state should charge nothing because EVs help reduce greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change and can offer budget benefits for many owners.

“We urgently need to get more electric vehicles on the road,” said Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas. “Any increased fee could create an additional barrier for Texans, and particularly more moderate- to low-income Texans, to make that transition.”

Tom “Smitty” Smith, the executive director of the Texas Electric Transportation Resources Alliance, advocated for a fee based on how many miles a person drove their electric car, which would better mirror how the gas taxes are assessed.

Texas has a limited incentive that could offset the cost: It offers rebates of up to $2,500 for up to 2,000 new hydrogen fuel cell, electric or hybrid vehicles every two years. Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen’s Texas office director, recommended that the state expand the rebates, noting that state-level EV benefits can be significant.

In the Houston area, dealer Steven Wolf isn’t worried about the fee deterring potential customers from buying the electric Ford F-150 Lightning and Mustang Mach-E vehicles he sells. Electric cars are already more expensive than comparable gasoline-fueled cars, and charging networks compete for drivers, he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Maryland Renewable Energy Violations highlight RPS compliance gaps as facilities selling renewable energy certificates, including waste-to-energy, biomass, and paper mills, face emissions and permit issues, prompting PSC and Attorney General scrutiny of environmental standards.

Key Points

Alleged RPS noncompliance by REC-eligible plants, prompting PSC review and potential decertification under Maryland law.

✅ Complaint targets waste-to-energy, biomass plants, and paper mills

✅ Facilities risk loss of REC certification for environmental violations

✅ PSC may investigate nonreporting; AG reviewing evidence

Many facilities that supply Maryland with renewable energy have exceeded pollution limits or otherwise broken environmental rules, violating a state law, according to a complaint sent by environmental groups to state energy and law enforcement officials.

Maryland law says that any company that contributes to a state renewable energy goal — half the state’s energy portfolio must come from renewable sources by 2030 — must “substantially comply” with rules on air and water quality and waste management. The complaint says more than two dozen power generators, including paper mills and trash incinerators, have records of formal or informal enforcement actions by environmental authorities.

For years, environmental groups have criticized Maryland policy that counts power plants that produce planet-warming carbon dioxide and health-threatening pollution as “renewable” energy generation, and similar tensions have emerged in California’s reliance on fossil fuels despite ambitious targets, but lawmakers concerned about protecting industrial jobs have resisted reforms. The renewable label qualifies the companies for subsidies drawn from energy bills across the state.

In a complaint filed this week, the groups asked the attorney general and Public Service Commission to step in.

“We’re subsidizing companies to produce dirty energy, but we’re also using ratepayer money to support companies that in many instances are paying environmental fines or just flouting the law,” said Timothy Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “There’s no one to hold them to account in Maryland.”

A spokeswoman for Attorney General Brian Frosh said his office would review the complaint, which was signed by Whitehouse and Mike Ewall, executive director of the Energy Justice Network.

Public Service Commission officials said the facilities must notify them if found out of compliance with environmental rules, while at the federal level FERC action on aggregated DERs is shaping market participation, and the commission can then revoke certification under the state renewable energy program. In a statement, commission officials said they would launch an investigation if any facility had failed to notify them of any environmental violations, and encouraged anyone with evidence of such a transgression to file a complaint.

Companies named in the document accused the groups of painting an inaccurate picture.

“This complaint is based on misleading arguments designed to halt waste-to-energy practices that have clear environmental benefits recognized by the global scientific community,” said Jim Connolly, vice president of environment, health and safety for Wheelabrator, which owns a Baltimore trash incinerator.

Maryland launched its renewable energy program in 2004, diversifying the state’s energy portfolio with more environmentally friendly sources of power, even as regional debates over a Maine-Québec transmission line highlight cross-border impacts. Under the program, separate from the electricity they generate and sell to the grid, renewable power facilities can sell what are known as renewable energy certificates. Utilities such as Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. are required to buy a growing number of the certificates each year, essentially subsidizing the renewable energy facilities with money from ratepayer bills.

A dozen types of power generation qualify to sell the certificates: Solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric plants, as well as “biomass” facilities that burn wood and other organic matter, waste-to-energy plants that burn household trash and paper mills that burn a byproduct known as black liquor.

The complaint focuses on waste incinerators, biomass plants and paper mills, all of which environmental groups have cast as counter to the renewable energy program’s environmental goals, even as ACORE criticized a coal and nuclear subsidy proposal in federal proceedings.

“By subsidizing these corporations, Maryland is diverting the hard-earned income of Maryland ratepayers to wealthy corporations with poor environmental compliance records and undermining the state’s transition to clean renewable energy,” Whitehouse and Ewall wrote.

For example, they note that the Wheelabrator plant in Southwest Baltimore has been fined for exceeding mercury limits in the past. That occurred in 2011, when the plant settled with state regulators for violations in 2010 and 2009.

Connolly said there is “no question” the facility complies with Maryland’s renewable energy law.

Incinerators in Montgomery County and in Fairfax County, Virginia, that are owned by Covanta and sell the energy certificates in Maryland have been cited for accidental fires inside both facilities. The Maryland incinerator violated emissions rules in 2014, the same year that New Jersey forbade the Virginia facility from selling energy certificates into that state’s renewable energy program over concerns it wasn’t following ash testing regulations.

James Regan, a spokesman for Covanta, said both facilities “have excellent compliance records and they operate well below their permitted limits.” He said the Virginia facility is complying with ash testing requirements, and that both facilities emit far lower levels of pollutants such as particulate matter than vehicles do.

“It’s clear to us there’s a lot of misleading and wrong information in this document," Regan said.

The Environmental Protection Agency endorsed waste-to-energy facilities under former President Barack Obama because, while burning household trash emits carbon dioxide, scientists said that still had a smaller impact on global warming than sending trash to landfills, even as industry groups have backed the EPA in a legal challenge to the ACE rule as regulatory approaches shifted.

Environmentalists and community groups say the facilities still are harmful because they emit high levels of pollutants such as mercury, nitrogen oxides and lead. The concerns prompted Baltimore City Council to pass an ordinance in February that tightened emissions limits on the Wheelabrator facility, even as the new EPA pollution limits for coal and gas plants are being proposed, so dramatically that the company said it would no longer be able to operate once the rules go into effect in 2022.

The complaint does not mention the century-old Luke paper mill in Western Maryland that long faced criticism for its participation in the renewable energy program, but which owner Verso Co. closed this year.

It does say several of paper company WestRock’s mills in North Carolina and Virginia have faced both formal and informal EPA enforcement actions for violation of the Clean Water Act, including evolving EPA wastewater limits for power plants and other facilities, and the Clean Air Act. A WestRock spokesperson could not be reached for comment.

The complaint also says a large biomass facility in South Boston, Virginia, owned by the Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative has a record of noncompliance with the Clean Air Act over three years.

John Rainey, the plant’s operations director, said it “experienced some small exceedances to its permit limits,” but that it addressed the issues with Virginia environmental officials and has installed new technology.

All those plants have sold credits in Maryland.

Whitehouse said the environmental groups’ goal is to clean up Maryland’s renewable energy program. They did not file a lawsuit because he said there was no clear cause of action to take the state to court, but said he hopes the complaint nonetheless spurs action.

“It’s not acceptable in a clean energy program that we’re subsidizing some of the most dirty sources of energy,” he said. “Those sources aren’t even in compliance with the law, and no one seems to care.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Coal Phase-Out signals a clean energy transition, replacing coal with natural gas and renewables, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, leveraging a carbon levy, and supporting workers in Alberta's evolving electricity market.

Key Points

Alberta Coal Phase-Out moves power from coal to lower-emission natural gas and renewables to reduce grid emissions.

✅ Last coal plant closed: Genesee Generating Station, Sept 30, 2023

✅ Shift to natural gas and renewables lowers emissions

✅ Carbon levy and incentives accelerated clean power build-out

The closure of the Genesee Generating Station on September 30, 2023, marked a significant milestone in Alberta's energy history, as the province moved to retire coal power by 2023 ahead of its 2030 provincial deadline. The Genesee, located near Calgary, was the province's last remaining coal-fired power plant. Its closure represents the culmination of a multi-year effort to transition Alberta's electricity sector away from coal and towards cleaner sources of energy.

For decades, coal was the backbone of Alberta's electricity grid. Coal-fired plants were reliable and relatively inexpensive to operate. However, coal also has a significant environmental impact. The burning of coal releases greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, a major contributor to climate change. Coal plants also produce air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, which can cause respiratory problems and acid rain, and in some regions electricity is projected to get dirtier as gas use expands.

In recognition of these environmental concerns, the Alberta government began to develop plans to phase out coal-fired power generation in the early 2000s. The government implemented a number of policies to encourage the shift from coal to cleaner energy such as natural gas and renewable energy. These policies included providing financial incentives for the construction of new natural gas plants and renewable energy facilities, as well as imposing a carbon levy on coal-fired generation.

The phase-out of coal was also driven by economic factors. The cost of natural gas has declined significantly in recent years, making it a more competitive fuel source for electricity generation as producers switch to gas under evolving market conditions. Additionally, the Alberta government faced increasing pressure from the federal government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The transition away from coal has not been without its challenges. Coal mining and coal-fired power generation have long been important parts of Alberta's economy. The closure of coal plants has resulted in job losses in the affected communities. The government has implemented programs to help workers transition to new jobs in the clean energy sector.

Despite these challenges, the closure of the Genesee Generating Station is a positive development for Alberta's environment and climate. Coal-fired power generation is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta, and recent wind generation outpacing coal underscores the sector's transformation. The closure of the Genesee is expected to result in a significant reduction in emissions, helping Alberta to meet its climate change targets.

The transition away from coal also presents opportunities for Alberta. The province has vast natural gas resources, which can be used to generate electricity with lower emissions than coal. Alberta is also well-positioned to develop renewable energy sources, such as wind power and solar power. These renewable energy sources can help to further reduce emissions and create new jobs in the clean energy sector.

The closure of the Genesee Generating Station is a significant milestone in Alberta's energy history. It represents the end of an era for coal-fired power generation in the province, a shift mirrored by the UK's last coal station going offline earlier this year. However, it also marks the beginning of a new era for Alberta's energy sector. By transitioning to cleaner sources of energy, Alberta can reduce its environmental impact and create a more sustainable energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Manitoba Hydro Court Ruling affirms the Public Utilities Board exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering a First Nations rate class, overturning an electricity rates appeal tied to geography, poverty, and regulatory authority in Manitoba.

Key Points

A decision holding the PUB lacked authority to create a First Nations rate class, restoring uniform electricity pricing.

✅ Court says PUB exceeded jurisdiction creating on-reserve rate

✅ Equalized electricity pricing reaffirmed across Manitoba

✅ Geography, not poverty, found decisive in unlawful rate class

Manitoba Hydro was wrongly forced to create a new rate class for electricity customers living on First Nations, the Manitoba Court of Appeal has ruled. 

The court decided the Public Utilities Board "exceeded its jurisdiction" by mandating Indigenous customers on First Nations could have a different electricity rate from other Manitobans. 

The board made the order in 2018, which exempted those customers from the general rate increase that year of 3.6 per cent.

"The directive constituted the creation and implementation of general social policy, an area outside of the PUB's jurisdiction and encroaching into areas that are better suited to the federal and provincial government," says the decision, which was released Tuesday.

Hydro's appeal of the PUB's decision went to court earlier this year.

At the time, the Crown corporation acknowledged many Indigenous people on First Nations live in poverty, but it argued the Public Utilities Board was overstepping its authority in trying to address the issue by creating a new rate class.

It also argued it was against provincial law to charge different rates in different areas of the province.

The PUB, however, insisted that legislation gives it the right to decide which factors are relevant when considering electricity prices, such as social issues. 

Special Manitoba Hydro rate class needed to offset challenges of living on First Nations, appeal court hears
Manitoba Hydro can appeal order to create special First Nation rate
The board had heard evidence that some customers were making "unacceptable" sacrifices to keep the lights on each month.

Decision 'heavy-handed': AMC
The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, an intervener in the appeal, had backed the utility board's position. It said on-reserve customers are disproportionately vulnerable to rate hikes over time.

Grand Chief Arlen Dumas said Wednesday he was surprised by the court's ruling. 

He argued Indigenous people are unduly excluded in the setting of electricity rates in Manitoba.

"I will be speaking with my federal and provincial counterparts on how we deal with this issue, because I think it's the wrong [decision]. It's heavy-handed and we need to address it."

The appeal court judges said there is past precedent for setting equal electricity rates, regardless of where customers live. Legislation to that effect was made in the early 2000s and a few years ago, the PUB recognized that geographical limitations should not be imposed on a class of customers.

Since the board's new order didn't extend the same savings to First Nations members who don't live on reserve but face similar financial circumstances, it is clear the deciding factor was geography, rather than poverty or treaty status, the judges said.

Manitoba Hydro temporarily cutting 200 jobs, many of them front-line workers
"In my view, the PUB erred in law when it created an on-reserve class based solely on a geographic region of the province in which customers are located," the decision read.

While Manitoba Hydro objected to the PUB's order in 2018, it still devoted money to create the new customer class.

Spokesperson Bruce Owen said the utility is still studying the impact of the court's decision, but it appreciates the ruling.  

"We all recognize that many people on First Nations have challenges, but our argument was solely on whether or not the PUB had the authority to create a special rate class based on where people live."

Owen added that Hydro recognizes electricity rates can be a hardship on individuals facing poverty. He said those considerations are part of the discussions the corporation has with the utilities board.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One Avista takeover rejection signals Washington regulators blocking a utility acquisition over governance risk, EPS dilution, and balance sheet impact, as investors applaud share price gains and a potential US$103M break fee.

Key Points

A regulator-led block of Hydro One's Avista bid, citing EPS dilution, balance sheet risk, and governance concerns.

✅ Washington denies approval; Idaho, Oregon decisions pending.

✅ EPS dilution avoided; balance sheet strength preserved.

✅ Shares rise 5.7%; US$103M break fee if deal collapses.

Opposition politicians may not like it but investors are applauding the rejection of Hydro One Ltd.'s $6.7-billion Avista takeover of U.S.-based utility Avista Corp.

Shares in the power company controlled by the Ontario government, which has also proposed a bill redesign to simplify statements, closed at $21.53, up $1.16 or 5.7 per cent, on the Toronto Stock Exchange on Thursday.

On Wednesday, Washington State regulators said they would not allow Ontario's largest utility to buy Avista over concerns about political risk that the provincial government, which owns 47 per cent of Hydro One's shares, might meddle in Avista's operations.

Financial analysts had predicted investors would welcome the news because the deal, announced in July 2017, would have eroded earnings per share and weakened Hydro One's balance sheet.

"The Washington regulator's denial of Avista is a positive development for the shares, in our opinion," said analyst Ben Pham of BMO Capital Markets in a report on Wednesday.

"While this may sound odd, we note that the Avista deal is expected to be EPS dilutive and result in a weaker balance sheet for (Hydro One). Not acquiring Avista and refocusing its attention on its core Ontario franchise ... along with related interprovincial arrangements such as the Ontario-Quebec electricity deal under discussion would likely be viewed positively if the deal ultimately breaks."

Decisions are yet to come from Idaho and Oregon state regulators, but Washington was probably the most important as the state contains customers making up about 60 per cent of Avista's rate base, Pham said.

He pointed out that a US$103-million break fee is to be paid to Avista if the deal collapses due to a failure to obtain regulatory approval.

CIBC analyst Robert Catellier raised his 12-month Hydro One target price by 25 cents and said many shareholders will feel "relieved" that the deal had failed.

He warned that the company's earnings power could deteriorate as the province seeks to reduce power bills by 12 per cent, despite an Ontario-Quebec hydro deal that may not lower costs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News