Creating electricity from wind that just happens to be blowing might seem like a cheap source of power, but it's not.
As we've already seen in Denmark, its high cost requires taxpayer handouts to develop and survive.
Subsidies in Denmark created a lot of wind power, but when the flow from the taxpayer subsidy tap ebbed, so did the industry.
In B.C., wind power will also be subsidized.
Creating a welfare-dependent industry in the province may benefit the backers of these projects, but the potential cost to taxpayers is huge, and the outlook for an unsubsidized industry is grim.
The Danish government decided to become a leader in wind power production and manufacturing after the first oil crisis in 1973.
It guaranteed long-term financing for large wind projects that used Danish-made turbines and obliged electricity utilities to purchase renewable energy from private wind power producers at a fixed price higher than the wholesale price of privately generated, fossil fuel electricity.
By 2000, Denmark had more than 6,000 working windmills, and 55 per cent of all wind turbines in the world had been manufactured in Denmark.
After European Union electricity market deregulation in 1999, the guarantees and direct price supports were replaced by a system of tradeable green certificates.
By 2004, the industry had come to a virtual standstill. Only five windmills were installed in Denmark that year, the lowest in 20 years.
The wind turbine industry in Denmark has rationalized since subsidies were cut back.
Between 2002 and 2007, the number of Danish turbine manufacturers shrank from eight to three.
Vestas, Denmark's largest wind turbine manufacturer and the biggest in the world, took over its domestic rival, NEG-Micon. Others were bought by foreign electrical giants such as Germany's Siemens.
Meanwhile, compared with other countries in Europe, the Danes remain above-average emitters of carbon dioxide.
When it's not windy, Denmark's power is generated mostly from coal-burning plants.
Carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal grew by 43 per cent between 2005 and 2006.
The stage is set for a similar boondoggle in B.C.
The wind power industry in Canada gets a federal government subsidy of $10 per megawatt hour.
But B.C. consumers can expect to dig deeper.
The cost of electricity from wind power is about $71 per megawatt hour. That compares to about $48 for natural gas and $25 for electricity produced from B.C.'s heritage hydro assets.
B.C. Hydro is expected to purchase high-cost electricity from wind plants.
Denmark's electricity utilities were also forced to buy high-cost power, giving Denmark one of the highest household electricity costs in Europe, at almost 30 cents per kilowatt hour in 2005. In B.C., we pay about 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour now.
B.C. families could be looking at a hefty increase in electricity costs to subsidize these feel-good projects.
Some very big companies back wind power, so why should B.C. taxpayers be on the hook to subsidize them?
The biggest U.S. wind turbine manufacturer, Zond Energy Systems, was owned by Enron and later sold to General Electric.
BP and Royal Dutch/Shell, two oil giants, have wind power investments all over the world.
Companies like these hardly need our help but will gladly take it if offered.
Subsidies to wind power projects in B.C. are wealth-transfers from the middle class to the wealthy and will create a welfare-dependent industry in the province, just as they did in Denmark.
Taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing industry, no matter how momentarily worthy the cause seems to be.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Global Energy Investment Decline risks future oil and electricity supply, says the IEA, as spending on upstream, coal plants, and grids falls while renewables, storage, and flexible generation lag in the energy transition.
Key Points
Multi-year cuts to oil, power, and grid spending that increase risks of future supply shortages and market tightness.
✅ China and India slow coal plant additions; renewables rise
✅ Batteries aid flexibility but cannot replace seasonal storage
An almost 20 per cent fall in global energy investment over the past three years could lead to oil and electricity shortages, as surging electricity demand persists, and there are concerns about whether current business models will encourage sufficient levels of spending in the future, according a new report.
The International Energy Agency’s second annual IEA benchmark analysis of energy investment found that while the world spent $US1.7 trillion ($2.2 trillion) on fossil-fuel exploration, new power plants and upgrades to electricity grids last year, with electricity investment surpassing oil and gas even as global energy investment was down 12 per cent from a year earlier and 17 per cent lower than 2014.
While the IEA said continued oversupply of oil and electricity globally would prevent any imminent shock, falling investment “points to a risk of market tightness and undercapacity at some point down the line’’.
The low crude oil price drove a 44 per cent drop in oil and gas investment between 2014 and 2016. It fell 26 per cent last year. It was due to falls in upstream activity and a slowdown in the sanctioning of conventional oilfields to the lowest level in more than 70 years.
“Given the depletion of existing fields, the pace of investment in conventional fields will need to rise to avoid a supply squeeze, even on optimistic assumptions about technology and the impact of climate policies on oil demand,’’ the IEA warned in its report released yesterday evening. “The energy transition has barely begun in several key sectors, such as transport and industry, which will continue to rely heavily on oil, gas and coal for the foreseeable future.’’
The fall in global energy spending also reflected declining investment in power generation, particularly from coal plants.
While 21 per cent of global energy investment was made by China in 2016, the world’s fastest growing economy had a 25 per cent decline in the commissioning of new coal-fired power plants, due largely to air pollution issues and investment in renewables.
Investment in new coal-fired plants also fell in India.
“India and China have slammed the brakes on coal-fired generation. That is the big change we have seen globally,’’ said Bruce Mountain a director at CME Australia.
“What it confirms is the pressures and the changes we are seeing in Australia, the restructuring of our energy supply, is just part of a global trend. We are facing the pressures more sharply in Australia because our power prices are very high. But that same shift in energy source in Australia are being mirrored internationally.’’ The IEA — a Paris-based adviser to the OECD on energy policy — also highlighted Australia’s reduced power reserves in its report and called for regulatory change to encourage greater use of renewables.
“Australia has one of the highest proportions of households with PV systems on their roof of any country in the world, and its electricity use in its National Electricity Market is spread out over a huge and weakly connected network,’’ the report said.
“It appears that a series of accompanying investments and regulatory changes are needed, including a plan to avoid supply threats, to use Australia’s abundant wind and solar potential: changing system operation methods and reliability procedures as well as investment into network capacity, flexible generation and storage.’’ The report found that in Australia there had been an increase in grid-scale installations mostly associated with large-scale solar PV plants.
Last month the Turnbull government revealed it was prepared to back the construction of new coal-fired power stations to prevent further shortfalls in electricity supplies, while the PM ruled out taxpayer-funded plants and declared it was open to using “clean coal” technology to replace existing generators.
He also pledged “immediate” action to boost the supply of gas by forcing exporters to divert production into the domestic market.
Since then technology billionaire Elon Musk has promised to solve South Australia’s energy issues by building the world’s largest lithium-ion battery in the state.
But the IEA report said batteries were unlikely to become a “one size fits all” single solution to electricity security and flexibility provision.
“While batteries are well-suited to frequency control and shifting hourly load, they cannot provide seasonal storage or substitute the full range of technical services that conventional plants provide to stabilise the system,’’ the report said.
“In the absence of a major technological breakthrough, it is most likely that batteries will complement rather than substitute conventional means of providing system flexibility. While conventional plants continue to provide essential system services, their business model is increasingly being called into question in unbundled systems.’’
BC Fossil Fuel Phase-Out outlines a just transition to a green economy, meeting climate targets by mid-century through carbon budgets, ending subsidies for fracking, capping production, and investing in renewable energy, remediation, and resilient infrastructure.
Key Points
A strategic plan to wind down oil and gas, end subsidies, and achieve climate targets with a just transition in BC.
✅ End new leases, phase out subsidies, cap fossil production
✅ Carbon budgets and timelines to meet mid-century climate targets
✅ Just transition: income supports, retraining, site remediation jobs
Politicians in British Columbia aren't focused enough on phasing out fossil fuel industries, a new report says.
The report, authored by the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, says the province must move away from fossil fuel industries by mid-century in order to meet its climate targets, with B.C. projected to fall short of 2050 targets according to recent analysis, but adds that the B.C. government is ill prepared to transition to a green economy.
"We are totally moving in the wrong direction," said economist Marc Lee, one of the authors of the report, on The Early Edition Wednesday.
He said most of the emphasis of B.C. government policy has been on slowing reductions in emissions from transportation or emissions from buildings, even though Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA, while still subsidizing fossil fuel extraction, such as fracking projects, that Lee said should be phased out.
"What we are putting on the table is politically unthinkable right now," said Lee, adding that last month's provincial budget called for a 26 per cent increased gas production over the next three years, even though electrified LNG facilities could boost demand for clean power.
B.C.'s $830M in fossil fuel subsidies undermines efforts to fight climate crisis, report says He said B.C. needs to start thinking instead about how its going to wind down its dependence on fossil fuel industries.
'Greener' job transition needed The report said the provincial government's continued interest in expanding production and exporting fossil fuels, even as Canada's race to net-zero intensifies across the energy sector, suggests little political will to think about a plan to move away from them.
It suggests the threat of major job losses in those industries is contributing to the political inaction, but cited several examples of ways governments can help move workers into greener jobs, as many fossil-fuel workers are ready to support the transition according to recent commentary.
Lee said early retirement provisions or income replacement for transitioning workers are options to consider.
"We actually have seen a lot of real-world policy around transition starting to happen, including in Alberta, which brought in a whole transition package for coal workers producing coal for electricity generation, and regional cooperation like bridging the electricity gap between Alberta and B.C. could further support reliability," Lee said.
Give cities the power to move more quickly on the environment, say Metro Van politicians Make it easier for small businesses to go green, B.C. Chamber of Commerce urges government Lee also said well-paying jobs could be created by, for example, remediating old coal mines and gas wells and building green infrastructure and renewable electricity projects in affected areas.
The report also calls for a moratorium on new fossil fuel leases and ending fossil fuel subsidies, as well as creating carbon budgets and fossil fuel production limits.
"Change is coming," said Lee. "We need to get out ahead of it."
Siemens Gamesa SG 14-222 DD advances offshore wind with a 14 MW direct-drive turbine, 108 m blades, a 222 m rotor, optional 15 MW boost, powering about 18,000 homes; prototype 2021, commercial launch 2024.
Key Points
A 14 MW offshore wind turbine with 108 m blades and a 222 m rotor, upgradable to 15 MW, targeting commercial use in 2024.
✅ 14 MW direct-drive, upgradable to 15 MW
✅ 108 m blades, 222 m rotor diameter
✅ Powers about 18,000 European homes annually
Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy (SGRE) has released details of a 14-megawatt (MW) offshore wind turbine, as offshore green hydrogen production gains attention, in the latest example of how technology in the sector is increasing in scale.
With 108-meter-long blades and a rotor diameter of 222 meters, the dimensions of the SG 14-222 DD turbine are significant.
In a statement Tuesday, SGRE said that one turbine would be able to power roughly 18,000 average European households annually, while its capacity can also be boosted to 15 MW if needed. A prototype of the turbine is set to be ready by 2021, and it’s expected to be commercially available in 2024, as forecasts suggest a $1 trillion business this decade.
Last December, for example, Dutch utility Eneco started to purchase power produced by the prototype of GE Renewable Energy’s Haliade-X 12 MW wind turbine. That turbine has a capacity of 12 MW, a height of 260 meters and a blade length of 107 meters.
The announcement of Siemens Gamesa’s new turbine plans comes against the backdrop of the coronavirus pandemic, which is impacting renewable energy companies around the world, even as wind power sees growth despite Covid-19 in many markets.
Earlier this month, the European company said Covid-19 had a “direct negative impact” of 56 million euros ($61 million) on its profitability between January and March, amid factory closures in Spain and supply chain disruptions. This, it added, was equivalent to 2.5% of revenues during the quarter.
The pandemic has, in some parts of the world, altered the sources used to power society. At the end of April, for instance, it was announced that a new record had been set for coal-free electricity generation in Great Britain, where UK offshore wind growth has accelerated, with a combination of factors — including coronavirus-related lockdown measures — playing a role.
On Tuesday, the CEO of another major wind turbine manufacturer, Danish firm Vestas, sought to emphasize the importance of renewable energy in the years and months ahead, and the lessons the U.S. can learn from the U.K. on wind deployment.
“I think we have actually, throughout this crisis, also shown to all society that renewables can be trusted,” Henrik Andersen said during an interview on CNBC’s Street Signs.
“But we both know ... that that transformation of energy sources is not going to happen overnight, it’s not going to happen from a quarter to a quarter, it’s going to happen by consistently planning year in, year out.”
Germany Industrial Electricity Price Subsidy weighs subsidies for energy-intensive industries to bolster competitiveness as Germany shifts to renewables, expands grid capacity, and debates free-market tax cuts versus targeted relief and long-term policies.
Key Points
Policy to subsidize power for energy-intensive industry, preserving competitiveness during the energy transition.
✅ SPD backs 5-7 cents per kWh for 10-15 years
✅ FDP prefers tax cuts and free-market pricing
✅ Scholz urges cheap renewables and grid expansion first
Germany’s three-party coalition is debating whether electricity prices for energy-intensive industries should be subsidised in a market where rolling back European electricity prices can be tougher than it appears, to prevent companies from moving production abroad.
Calls to reduce the electricity bill for big industrial producers are being made by leading politicians, who, like others in Germany, fear the country could lose its position as an industrial powerhouse as it gradually shifts away from fossil fuel-based production, amid historic low energy demand and economic stagnation concerns.
“It is in the interest of all of us that this strong industry, which we undoubtedly have in Germany, is preserved,” Lars Klingbeil, head of Germany’s leading government party SPD (S&D), told Bayrischer Rundfunk on Wednesday.
To achieve this, Klingbeil is advocating a reduced electricity price for the industry of about 5 to 7 cents per Kilowatt hour, which the federal government would subsidise. This should be introduced within the next year and last for about 10 to 15 years, he said.
Under the current support scheme, which was financed as part of the €200 billion “rescue shield” against the energy crisis, energy-intensive industries already pay 13 cents per Kilowatt hour (KWh) for 70% of their previous electricity needs, which is substantially lower than the 30 to 40 cents per KWh that private consumers pay.
“We see that the Americans, for example, are spending $450 billion on the Inflation Reduction Act, and we see what China is doing in terms of economic policy,” Klingbeil said.
“If we find out in 10 years that we have let all the large industrial companies slip away because the investments are not being made here in Germany or Europe, and jobs and prosperity and growth are being lost here, then we will lose as a country,” he added.
However, not everyone in the German coalition favours subsidising electricity prices.
Finance Minister Christian Lindner of the liberal FDP (Renew), for example, has argued against such a step, instead promoting free-market principles and, amid rising household energy costs, reducing taxes on electricity for all.
“Privileging industrial companies would only be feasible at the expense of other electricity consumers and taxpayers, for example, private households or the small trade sector,” Lindner wrote in an op-ed for Handelsblatt on Tuesday.
“Increasing competitiveness for some would mean a loss of competitiveness for others,” he added.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz, himself a member of SPD, was more careful with his words, amid ongoing EU electricity reform debates in Brussels.
Asked about a subsidised electricity price for the industry at a town hall event on Monday, Scholz said he does not “want to make any promises now”.
“First of all, we have to make sure that we have cheap electricity in Germany in the first place,” Scholz said, promoting the expansion of renewable energy such as wind and solar, as local utilities cry for help, as well as more electricity grid infrastructure.
“What we will not be able to do as an economy, even as France’s new electricity pricing scheme advances, is to subsidise everything that takes place in normal economic activity,” Scholz said. “We should not get into the habit of doing that,” he added.
Ontario Electricity Relief outlines an extended disconnect moratorium, potential time-of-use price changes, and Ontario Energy Board oversight to support residential customers facing COVID-19 hardship and bill payment challenges during the emergency in Ontario.
Key Points
Plan to extend disconnect moratorium and weigh time-of-use price relief for residential customers during COVID-19.
✅ Extends winter disconnect ban by 3 months
✅ Considers time-of-use price adjustments
✅ Requires Ontario Energy Board approval
The Ontario government is preparing to announce electricity relief for residential electricity users struggling because of the COVID-19 emergency, according to sources.
Sources close to those discussions say a decision has been made to lengthen the existing five-month disconnect moratorium by an additional three months.
Separately, Hydro One's relief fund has offered support to its customers during the pandemic.
News releases about the moratorium extension are currently being drafted and are expected to be released shortly, as the pandemic has reduced electricity usage across Ontario.
Electricity utilities in Ontario are currently prohibited from disconnecting residential customers for non-payment during the winter ban period from November 15 to April 30.
The province is also looking at providing further relief by adjusting time-of-use prices, such as off-peak electricity rates, which are designed to encourage shifting of energy use away from periods of high total consumption to periods of low demand.
For businesses, the province has provided stable electricity pricing to support industrial and commercial operations.
But that would require Ontario Energy Board approval and no decision has been finalized, our sources advise.
