Biomass energy gaining momentum in the UK

Community Power Tariff UK delivers clean electricity from community energy projects, sourcing renewable energy from local wind and solar farms, with carbon offset gas, transparent provenance, fair pricing, and reinvestment in local generators across Britain.

Key Points

UK energy plan delivering 100% community renewable power with carbon-offset gas, sourced from local wind and solar.

✅ 100% community-generated electricity from UK wind and solar

✅ Fair prices with profits reinvested in local projects

✅ Carbon-offset gas and verified, transparent provenance

UK homes will soon be able to plug into community wind and solar farms from anywhere in the country through the first energy tariff to offer clean electricity exclusively from community projects.

The deal from Co-op Energy comes as green energy suppliers race to prove their sustainability credentials amid rising competition for eco-conscious customers and “greenwashing” in the market.

The energy supplier will charge an extra £5 a month over Co-op’s regular tariff to provide electricity from community energy projects and gas which includes a carbon offset in the price.

Co-op, which is operated by Octopus Energy after it bought the business from the Midcounties Co-operative last year, will source the clean electricity for its new tariff directly from 90 local renewable energy generation projects across the UK, including the Westmill wind and solar farms in Oxfordshire. It plans to use all profits to reinvest in maintaining the community projects and building new ones.

Phil Ponsonby, the chief executive of Midcounties Co-operative, said the tariff is the UK’s only one to be powered by 100% community-generated electricity and would ensure a fair price is paid to community generators too, amid a renewable energy auction boost that supports wider deployment.

Customers on the Community Power tariff will be able to “see exactly where it is being generated at small scale sites across the UK, and, with new rights to sell solar power back to energy firms, they know it is benefiting local communities”, he said.

Co-op, which has about 300,000 customers, has set itself apart from a rising number of energy supply deals which are marked as 100% renewable, but are not as green as they seem, even as many renewable projects are on hold due to grid constraints.

Consumer group Which? has found that many suppliers offer renewable energy tariffs but do not generate renewable electricity themselves or have contracts to buy any renewable electricity directly from generators.

Instead, the “pale green” suppliers exploit a loophole in the energy market by snapping up cheap renewable energy certificates, without necessarily buying energy from renewables projects.

The certificates are issued by the regulator to renewable energy developers for each megawatt generated, but these can be sold separately from the electricity for a fraction of the price.

A survey conducted last year found that one in 10 people believe that a renewables tariff means that the supplier generates at least some of its electricity from its own renewable energy projects.

Ponsonby said the wind and solar schemes that generate electricity for the Community Power tariff “plough the profits they make back into their neighbourhoods or into helping other similar projects get off the ground”.

Greg Jackson, the chief executive of Octopus Energy, said being able to buy locally-sourced clean, green energy is “a massive jump in the right direction” which will help grow the UK’s green electricity capacity nationwide.

“Investing in more local energy infrastructure and getting Britain’s homes run by the sun when it’s shining and wind energy when it’s blowing can end our reliance on dirty fossil fuels sooner than we hoped,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

NB Power Pulp and Paper Subsidies lower electricity rates for six New Brunswick mills using firm power benchmarks and interruptible discounts, while government mandates, utility debt, ratepayer impacts, and competitiveness pressures shape provincial energy policy.

Key Points

Provincial mandates that buy down firm electricity rates for six mills to a national average, despite NB Power's debt.

✅ Mandated buy-down to match national firm electricity rates

✅ Ignores large non-firm interruptible power discounts

✅ Raises equity concerns amid NB Power debt and rate pressure

An effort to fix NB Power's struggling finances that is supposed to involve a look at "all options" will not include a review of the policy that requires the utility to subsidize electricity prices for six New Brunswick pulp and paper mills, according to the Department of Natural Resources and Energy Development.

The program is meant "to enable New Brunswick's pulp and paper companies have access to competitive priced electricity,"  said the department's communications officer Nick Brown in an email Monday 

"Keeping our large industries competitive with other Canadian jurisdictions, amid Nova Scotia rate hike opposition debates elsewhere, is important," he wrote, knocking down the idea the subsidy program might be scrutinized for shortcomings like other NB Power expenses.

Figures released last week show NB Power paid out $9.7 million in rate subsidies to the mills under the program in the fiscal year ended in March 2021, even though the utility was losing $4 million for the year and falling deeper into debt, amid separate concerns about old meter issues affecting households.

Subsidies went to three mills owned by J.D. Irving Ltd. including two in Saint John and one in Lake Utopia, two owned by the AV group in Nackawic and Atholville and the Twin Rivers pulp mill in Edmundston.

The New Brunswick government has made NB Power subsidize pulp and paper mills like Twin Rivers Paper Company since 2012, and is requiring the program to continue despite financial problems at the utility. (CBC)
It was NB Power's second year in a row of financial losses, while it is supposed to pay down $500 million of its $4.9 billion debt load in the next five years to prepare for the refurbishment of the Mactaquac dam, a burden comparable to customers in Newfoundland paying for Muskrat Falls elsewhere under separate policies, under a directive issued by the province

NB Power president Keith Cronkhite said he was "very disappointed" with debt increasing last year instead of  falling and senior vice president and chief financial officer Darren Murphy said everything would be under the microscope this year to turn the utility's finances around.  

"We need to do better," said Murphy on Thursday

"We need to step back and make sure we're considering all options, including approaches like Newfoundland's ratepayer shield agreement on megaproject overruns, to achieve that objective because the objective is quickly closing in on us."

However, reviewing the subsidy program for the six pulp and paper mills is apparently off limits.

The subsidy program requires NB Power to buy down the cost of "firm" electricity bought by pulp and paper mills to a national average that is calculated by the Department of Natural Resources and Energy Development.

Last year the province declared the price mills in New Brunswick pay to be an average of  7.536 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh).  It is higher than rates in five other provinces that have mills, which the province points to as justification for the subsidies, even as Nova Scotia's 14% rate hike approval highlights broader upward pressure, although the true significance of that difference is not entirely clear.

In British Columbia, the large forest products company Paper Excellence operates five pulp and paper mills which are charged 17.2 per cent less for firm electricity than the six mills in New Brunswick.

The Paper Excellence Paper Mill in Port Alberni, B.C. pays lower electricity prices than mills in New Brunswick, a benefit largely offset by higher property taxes. It's a factor New Brunswick does not count in calculating subsidies NB Power must pay. (Paper Excellence)
However, local property taxes on the five BC mills are a combined $7.8 million higher than the six New Brunswick plants, negating much of that difference.

The province's subsidy formula does not account for differences like that or for the fact New Brunswick mills buy a high percentage of their electricity at cheap non-firm prices.

Not counting the subsidies, NB Power already sells high volumes of what it calls interruptible and surplus power to industry at deep discounts on the understanding it can be cut off and redeployed elsewhere on short notice when needed.

Actual interruptions in service are rare.  Last year there were none, but NB Power sold 837 million kilowatt hours of the discounted power to industry at an average price of 4.9 cents per kwh.   

NB Power does not disclose how much of the $22 million or more in savings went to the six mills, but the price was 35 per cent below NB Power's posted rate for the plants and rivaled firm prices big mills receive anywhere in Canada, including Quebec.

Asked why the subsidy program ignores large amounts of discounted interruptible power used by New Brunswick mills in making comparisons between provinces, Brown said regulations governing the program require a comparison of firm prices only.

"The New Brunswick average rate is based on NB Power's published large industrial rate for firm energy, as required by the Electricity from Renewable Resources regulation," he wrote.

The subsidy program itself was imposed on NB Power by the province in 2012 to aid companies suffering after years of poor markets for forest products following the 2008 financial collapse and recession.  

Providing subsidies has cost NB Power $100 million so far and has continued even as markets for pulp products improved significantly and NB Power's own finances worsened.

Report warned against subsidies
NB Power has never directly criticized the program, but in a matter currently in front the of the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board looking at how NB Power might restructure its rates, including proposals such as seasonal rates that could prompt backlash, an independent consultant hired by the utility suggested rate subsidies to large export oriented manufacturing facilities, like pulp and paper mills, is generally a poor idea.

"We do not recommend offering subsidies to exporters," says the report by Christensen Associates Energy Consulting of Madison, Wis.

"There are two serious economic problems with subsidizing exports. The first is that the benefits may be less than the costs. The second problem is that subsidies tend to last forever, even if the circumstances that initially justified the subsidies have disappeared."

The Christensen report did not directly assess the merits of the current subsidy for pulp and paper mills but it addressed the issue because it said in the design of new rates "one NB Power business customer has raised the possibility that their electricity-intensive business ought to be granted subsidies because of the potential to generate extra benefits for the Province through increases in their exports"

That, said Christensen, rarely benefits the public.

"The direct costs of the subsidies are the subsidies themselves, a part of which ends up in the pockets of out-of-province consumers of the exported goods," said the report.  

"But there are also indirect costs due to the fact that the subsidies are financed through higher electricity prices, which means that other electricity customers have less money to spend on services provided by local businesses, thus putting a drag on the local economy."

The province does not agree.

Asked whether it has any studies or cost-benefit reviews that show the subsidy program is a net benefit to New Brunswick, the department cited none but maintained it is an important initiative, even as elsewhere governments have offered electricity bill credit relief to ratepayers.

"The program was designed to give large industrial businesses the ability to compete on a level energy field," wrote Brown.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Senate Renewable Energy Tax Credits face Finance Committee scrutiny, with Democrats urging action on tax extenders, clean energy incentives, and climate policy, while Republicans cite prior wins in wind, biodiesel, and EV credits.

Key Points

Legislative incentives debated in the Senate Finance Committee to extend and align clean energy tax benefits.

✅ Democrats press hearings and action on energy tax policy

✅ Focus on clean energy, EVs, wind, biodiesel, and resilience

✅ Grassley cites prior extenders; disputes push for bigger subsidies

A group of 27 Democratic senators is calling for action in the Senate Finance Committee on extending energy-related tax credits and examining new tax proposals, especially those that incentivize renewable energy projects and align with FERC action on aggregated DERs across the grid.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, who recently introduced a wildfire-resilient grid bill with Sen. Merkley, led the group of Democrats in writing a letter Tuesday to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who chairs the committee.

“Despite numerous opportunities, including in the recent tax extenders package, the Finance Committee has failed to take action on the dozens of energy tax proposals pending before it,” they wrote. “It is critical that the Committee move to address these issues in a timely manner, along with much needed policy changes that heed warnings on regulatory rollbacks to combat the damage and growing dangers caused by global climate change.”

The number of Americans ages 65 and over is projected to nearly double by 2060. And most would prefer to age in place and hiresenior caregivers if needed.

They pointed out that the Senate Finance Committee hasn’t held a single hearing on energy tax policy during the previous congressional term, and has yet to hold one in the current one.

“The sole energy tax-related recommendation of the Committee’s temporary policy task forces was ignored in the tax extender legislation passed in December 2019, along with nearly all proposals put forward in members’ legislation this Congress,” they wrote. “This Committee must fulfill its role in examining members’ energy tax proposals and in bolstering our nation’s efforts to combat climate change, including a clean electricity standard approach that sets firm targets.”

They noted that In 2019, the global average temperature was the second highest ever recorded and the past decade was the hottest ever. The lawmakers pointed to raging wildfires and increased flooding in the western part of the U.S., as well as challenges in California’s power system during the transition, causing unprecedented destruction over the past several years. They called for tax incentives for renewable energy to help combat climate change.

“Gaps in the tax code have disadvantaged complementary technologies that could improve climate resiliency and provide additional emissions reductions,” they wrote. “While power sector emissions continue to decrease, emissions from transportation, heavy industry and agriculture have stayed level or increased over the past 10 years, even amid $5 gas not spurring a green shift in consumer behavior. The United States is not on pace to meet its international climate commitments, to say nothing of the reductions necessary to stave off the worst potential outcomes of global warming.”

Grassley reacted to the letter, noting that he had worked to get tax extenders legislation passed, even as some states consider bans on clean energy use by utilities. "I begged Democrats for a year to help me get an extenders package passed, about half of which were green energy policies, so this rings hollow," he said in a statement Tuesday. "We wouldn’t have a wind energy credit or a biodiesel credit but for me, let alone an extension of either. Democrats were holding up these green energy provisions in an attempt to get a big expansion of taxpayer subsidies for rich Tesla owners."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Spring Storm Grid Risks highlight tornado outbreaks, flooding, power outages, and transmission disruptions, with NOAA flood outlooks, coal and barge delays, vulnerable nuclear sites, and distribution line damage demanding resilience, reliability, and emergency preparedness.

Key Points

Spring Storm Grid Risks show how tornadoes and floods disrupt power systems, fuel transport, and plants guide resilience.

✅ Tornado outbreaks and derechos damage distribution and transmission

✅ Flooding drives outages via treefall, substation and plant inundation

✅ Fuel logistics disrupted: rail coal, river barges, road access

The storm and tornado outbreak that recently barreled through the US Midwest, South and Mid-Atlantic was a devastating reminder of how much danger spring can deliver, despite it being the “milder” season compared to summer and winter.  

Danger season is approaching, and the country is starting to see the impacts. 

The event killed at least 32 people across seven states. The National Weather Service is still tallying up the number of confirmed tornadoes, which has already passed 100. Communities coping with tragedy are assessing the damage, which so far includes at least 72 destroyed homes in one Tennessee county alone, and dozens more homes elsewhere. 

On Saturday, April 1–the day after the storm struck–there were 1.1 million US utility customers without power, even as EIA reported a January power generation surge earlier in the year. On Monday morning, April 3, there were still more than 80,000 customers in the dark, according to PowerOutage.us. The storm system brought disruptions to both distribution grids–those networks of local power lines you generally see running overhead to buildings–as well as the larger transmission grid in the Midwest, which is far less common than distribution-level issues. 

While we don’t yet have a lot of granular details about this latest storm’s grid impacts, recent shifts in demand like New York City's pandemic power patterns show how operating conditions evolve, and it’s worth going through what else the country might be in for this spring, as well as in future springs. Moreover, there are steps policymakers can take to prepare for these spring weather phenomena and bolster the reliability and resilience of the US power system. 

Heightened flood risk 
The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said in a recent outlook that about 44 percent of the United States is at risk of floods this spring, equating to about 146 million people. This includes most of the eastern half of the country, the federal agency said. 

The agency also sees “major” flood risk potential in some parts of the Upper Mississippi River Basin, and relatively higher risk in the Sierra Nevada region, due in part to a historic snowpack in California.  

Multiple components of the power system can be affected by spring floods. 

Power lines – Floods can saturate soil and make trees more likely to uproot and fall onto power lines. This has been contributing to power outages during California’s recent heavy storms–called atmospheric rivers–that started over the winter. In other regions, soil moisture has even been used as a predictor of where power outages will occur due to hurricanes, so that utility companies are better prepared to send line repair crews to the right areas. Hurricanes are primarily a summer and fall phenomenon, and summer also brings grid stress from air conditioning demand in many states, so for now, during spring, they are less of a concern.  

Fuel transport – Spring floods can hinder the transportation of fuels like coal. While it is a heavily polluting fossil fuel that is set to continue declining as a fuel source for US electricity generation, with the EIA summer outlook for wind and solar pointing to further shifts, coal still accounted for roughly 20 percent of the country’s generation in 2022.   

About 70 percent of US coal is transported at least part of the way by trains. The rail infrastructure to transport coal from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming–the country’s primary coal source–was proven to be vulnerable to extreme floods in the spring of 2011, and even more extreme floods in the spring of 2019. The 2019 floods’ disruptions of coal shipments to power plants via rail persisted for months and into the summertime, also affecting river shipments of coal by barge. In June 2019, hundreds of barges were stalled in the Mississippi River, through which millions of tons of the fossil fuel are normally transported. 

Power plants – Power plants themselves can also be at risk of flooding, since most of them are sited near a source of water that is used to create steam to spin the plants’ turbines, and conversely, low water levels can constrain hydropower as seen in Western Canada hydropower drought during recent reservoir shortfalls. Most US fossil fuel generating capacity from sources like methane gas, which recently set natural gas power records across the grid, and coal utilizes steam to generate electricity. 

However, much of the attention paid to the flood risk of power plant sites has centered on nuclear plants, a key source of low-carbon electricity discussed in IAEA low-carbon electricity lessons that also require a water source for the creation of steam, as well as for keeping the plant cool in an emergency. To name a notable flood example here in the United States–both visually and substantively–in 2011, the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant in Nebraska was completely surrounded by water due to late-spring flooding along the Missouri River. This sparked a lot of concerns because it was just a few months after the March 2011 meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan. The public was thankfully not harmed by the Nebraska incident, but this was unfortunately not an isolated incident in terms of flood risks posed to the US nuclear power fleet. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

ERCOT Texas Power Grid Crisis disrupts millions amid a winter storm, with rolling blackouts, power outages, and energy demand; Elon Musk criticizes ERCOT as Tesla owners use Camp Mode while wind turbines face icing

Key Points

A Texas blackout during a winter storm, exposing ERCOT failures, rolling blackouts, and urgent grid resilience measures.

✅ Millions without power amid record cold and energy demand

✅ Elon Musk criticizes ERCOT over grid reliability failures

✅ Tesla Camp Mode aids warmth during extended outages

Tesla CEO Elon Musk on Wednesday slammed the Texas agency responsible for a statewide blackout amid a U.S. grid with frequent outages that has left millions of people to fend for themselves in a freezing cold winter storm.

Musk tweeted that Texas’ power grid manager, the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), is not earning the “R” in the acronym, highlighting broader grid vulnerabilities that critics have noted.

Musk moved to Texas from California in December and is building a new Tesla factory in Austin. His critique of the state’s electrical grid operator came after multiple Tesla owners in the state said they had slept in their vehicles to keep warm amid the lingering power outage.

In 2019, Tesla released a vehicle with a “Camp Mode,” which enables owners to use the vehicle’s features – like lights and climate control – without significantly depleting the battery.

“We had the power go out for 6 hours last night. Our house does not have gas, and we ran out of firewood... what are we going to do,” one Reddit user wrote on “r/TeslaMotors.”

“So my wife my dog and my newborn daughter slept in the garage in our Model3 all nice and cozy. If I didn't have this car, it would have been a very rough night.”

More than two dozen people have died in the extreme weather this week, some while struggling to find warmth inside their homes. In the Houston area, one family succumbed to carbon monoxide from car exhaust in their garage. Another perished as they used a fireplace to keep warm.

Utilities from Minnesota to Texas and Mississippi have implemented rolling blackouts to ease the burden on power grids straining to meet extreme demand for heat and electricity, as longer, more frequent outages hit systems nationwide.

More than 3 million customers remained without power in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, more than 200,000 more in four Appalachian states, and nearly that many in the Pacific Northwest, according to poweroutage.us, which tracks utility outage reports, and advocates warn that millions could face summer shut-offs without protections.

ERCOT said early Wednesday that electricity had been restored to 600,000 homes and businesses by Tuesday night, though nearly 3 million homes and businesses remained without power, as California turns to batteries to help balance demand. Officials did not know when power would be restored.

ERCOT President Bill Magness said he hoped many customers would see at least partial service restored soon but could not say definitively when that would be.

Magness has defended ERCOT’s decision, saying it prevented an “even more catastrophic than the terrible events we've seen this week."

Utility crews raced Wednesday to restore power to nearly 3.4 million customers around the U.S. who were still without electricity in the aftermath of a deadly winter storm, even as officials urge residents to prepare for summer blackouts that could tax systems further, and another blast of ice and snow threatened to sow more chaos.

The latest storm front was expected to bring more hardship to states that are unaccustomed to such frigid weather — parts of Texas, Arkansas and the Lower Mississippi Valley — before moving into the Northeast on Thursday.

"There's really no letup to some of the misery people are feeling across that area," said Bob Oravec, lead forecaster with the National Weather Service, referring to Texas.

Sweden, known for its brutally cold climate, has offered some advice to Texans unaccustomed to such freezing temperatures, as Canadian grids are increasingly exposed to harsh weather that strains reliability. Stefan Skarp of the Swedish power company told Bloomberg on Tuesday: “The problem with sub-zero temperatures and humid air is that ice will form on the wind turbines.”

“When ice freezes on to the wings, the aerodynamic changes for the worse so that wings catch less and less wind until they don't catch any wind at all,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Income-Based Electricity Rates propose a fixed monthly fee set by income as utilities and the CPUC weigh progressive pricing, aiming to cut low-income bills while PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E retain usage-based charges.

Key Points

CPUC plan adds income-tiered fixed fees to lower low-income bills while keeping per-kWh usage charges.

✅ Adds fixed monthly fees by income to complement per-kWh charges

✅ Cuts bills for low-income households; higher earners pay more

✅ Utilities say revenue neutral; conservation signals preserved

California’s electric bills — already some of the highest in the nation — are rising as electricity prices soar across the state, but regulators are debating a new plan to charge customers based on their income level. 

Typically what you pay for electricity depends on how much you use. But the state’s three largest electric utilities — Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company — have proposed a plan to charge customers not just for how much energy they use, but also based on their household income, moving toward income-based flat-fee utility bills over time. Their proposal is one of several state regulators received designed to accommodate a new law to make energy less costly for California’s lowest-income customers.

Some state Republican lawmakers are warning the changes could produce unintended results, such as weakening incentives to conserve electricity or raising costs for customers using solar energy, and some have introduced a plan to overturn the charges in the Legislature.

But the utility companies say the measure would reduce electricity bills for the lowest income customers. Those residents would save about $300 per year, utilities estimate.

California households earning more than $180,000 a year would end up paying an average of $500 more a year on their electricity bills, according to the proposal from utility companies. 

The California Public Utilities Commission’s deadline for deciding on the suggested changes is July 1, 2024, as regulators face calls for action from consumers and advocates. The proposals come at a time when many moderate and low-income families are being priced out of California by rising housing costs.  

Who wants to change the fee structure?
Lawmakers passed and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a comprehensive energy bill last summer that mandates restructuring electricity pricing across the state. 

The Legislature passed the measure in a “trailer-bill” process that limited deliberation. Included in the 21,000-word law are a few sentences requiring the public utilities commission to establish a “fixed monthly fee” based on each customer’s household income. 

A similar idea was first proposed in 2021 by researchers at UC Berkeley and the nonprofit thinktank Next 10. Their main recommendation was to split utility costs into two buckets. Fixed charges, which everyone has to pay just to be connected to the energy grid, would be based on income levels. Variable charges would depend on how much electricity you use.

Utilities say that part of customers’ bills still will be based on usage, but the other portion will reduce costs for lower- and middle-income customers, who “pay a greater percentage of their income towards their electricity bill relative to higher income customers,” the utilities argued in a recent filing. 

They said the current billing system is unjust, regressive and fails to recognize differences in energy usage among households,

“When we were putting together the reform proposal, front and center in our mind were customers who live paycheck to paycheck, who struggle to pay for essentials such as energy, housing and food,” Caroline Winn, CEO of San Diego Gas & Electric in a statement. 

The utilities say in their proposal that the changes likely would not reduce or increase their revenues.

James Sallee, an associate professor at UC Berkeley, said the utilities’ prior system of billing customers mostly by measuring their electric use to pay for what are essentially fixed costs for power is inefficient and regressive. 

The proposed changes “will shift the burden, on average, to a more progressive system that recovers more from higher income households and less from lower income households,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News