With national attention focused on President Obama's troubled health care reform efforts, we can't afford to take our eyes off his other flawed and costly priority — "cap and trade" global-warming legislation.
Expanding the size of government is one of the many problems with the House-approved version of cap-and-trade. Mr. Obama and House Democrats plan to spend more tax dollars than they are acknowledging to increase the number of federal regulators to implement a job-killing, growth-limiting bill that raises energy costs for every American.
As reported earlier in the Washington Times, the plan to establish a massive market for carbon-dioxide trading credits will put stress on regulatory agencies like the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency. The regulatory expansion — part of an effort to force some companies to pay for the right to emit CO2 gas — will mean thousands of new federal employees imposing nearly 1,500 new regulations on businesses through 21 federal agencies. This will cost $8 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, which is notorious for underestimating bureaucratic drag on the economy.
Although funding for the new bureaucrats is not in the House bill, Mr. Obama has claimed the measure will not drain federal coffers and put additional pressure on the massive federal deficit. "At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air we breathe," he said in June.
Funding for the bureaucratic buildup will have to come from somewhere. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission alone is expected to expand by at least 31 percent to meet new regulatory demands, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is predicted to grow by 20 percent to 30 percent. None of that is currently funded. The level of the EPA's expansion is uncertain but sure to be immense given that the 6 billion tons in annual carbon-dioxide emissions in the United States dwarfs the 300 million tons of regulated pollutants the agency currently oversees.
Mr. Obama repeatedly has claimed that spending on clean energy will save or create "millions of new jobs." Other than new armies of regulators, we don't buy it. Data from a recent Energy Department study on the impact of the House bill shows that the overall job picture will worsen in the first few years after implementation. After a brief supposed uptick in 2024, employment will decline steadily to 0.25 percent fewer jobs in 2030, with the manufacturing sector suffering a 2.5 percent lag. No doubt, these federal predictions underestimate the real damage the regulations would have on the economy.
With the Senate expected to return to drafting its version of the bill in September, it's important to recognize the fiscal danger and job losses that accompany cap-and-trade legislation. Cap-and-trade should be opposed with the same furor we've seen against the Democrats' proposed health care plans.
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.
Germany Nuclear Phase-Out ends power generation from reactors, prioritizing energy security, renewables, and emissions goals amid the Ukraine war, natural gas shortages, decommissioning plans, and climate change debates across Europe and the national power grid.
Key Points
Germany Nuclear Phase-Out ends reactors, shifting to renewables to balance energy security, emissions, climate goals.
✅ Three reactors closed: Emsland, Isar II, Neckarwestheim II
✅ Pivot to renewables, efficiency, and grid resilience
✅ Continued roles in fuel fabrication and decommissioning
Germany is no longer producing any electricity from nuclear power plants, a move widely seen as turning its back on nuclear for good.
Closures of the Emsland, Isar II, and Neckarwestheim II nuclear plants in Germany were expected. The country announced plans to phase out nuclear power in 2011. However, in the fall of 2022, with the Ukraine war constraining access to energy, especially in Europe, Germany decided to extend nuclear power operations for an additional few months to bolster supplies.
“This was a highly anticipated action. The German government extended the lifetimes of these plants for a few months but never planned beyond that,” David Victor, a professor of innovation and public policy at UC San Diego, said.
Responses to the closures ranged from aghast that Germany would shut down a clean source of energy production, especially as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy. In contrast, the global response to anthropogenic climate change continues to be insufficient to celebratory that the country will avoid any nuclear accidents like those that have happened in other parts of the world.
A collection of esteemed scientists, including two Nobel laureates and professors from MIT and Columbia, made a last-minute plea in an open letter published on April 14 on the nuclear advocacy group’s website, RePlaneteers, to keep the reactors operating, reviving questions about a resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany today.
“Given the threat that climate change poses to life on our planet and the obvious energy crisis in which Germany and Europe find themselves due to the unavailability of Russian natural gas, we call on you to continue operating the last remaining German nuclear power plants,” the letter states.
The open letter states that the Emsland, Isar II, and Neckarwestheim II facilities provided more than 10 million German households with electricity, even as some officials argued that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue then. That’s a quarter of the population.
“This is hugely disappointing, when a secure low carbon 24/7 source of energy such as nuclear was available and could have continued operation for another 40 years,” Henry Preston, spokesperson for the World Nuclear Association. “Germany’s nuclear industry has been world-class. All three reactors shut down at the weekend performed extremely well.”
Despite the shutdown, some segments of nuclear industrial processes will continue to operate. “Germany’s nuclear sector will continue to be first class in the wider nuclear supply chain in areas such as fuel fabrication and decommissioning,” Preston said.
While the open letter did not succeed in keeping the nuclear reactors open, it does underscore a crucial reason why nuclear power has been part of global energy conversations recently, with some arguing it is a needed option for climate policy after a generational lull in the construction of nuclear power plants: climate change.
Generating electricity with nuclear reactors does not create any greenhouse gases. And as global climate change response efforts continue to fall short of emission targets, atomic energy is getting renewed consideration, and Germany has even considered a U-turn on its phaseout amid renewed debate.
Western Lithium Supply Localization is accelerating as EV battery makers diversify from China, boosting lithium hydroxide sourcing in North America and Europe, amid Covid-19 disruptions and rising prices, with geothermal brines and local processing.
Key Points
An industry shift to source lithium and processing near EV hubs, reducing China reliance and supply chain risk.
✅ EV makers seek North American and European lithium hydroxide
✅ Prices rise amid Covid-19 and logistics constraints
✅ New extraction: geothermal and oilfield brine projects
The global outbreak of coronavirus will accelerate efforts by western carmakers to localise supplies of lithium for electric car batteries, according to US producer Livent.
The industry was keen to diversify away from China, which produces the bulk of the world’s lithium, a critical material for lithium-ion batteries, said Paul Graves, Livent’s chief executive.
“It’s a conversation that’s starting to happen that was not happening even six months ago,” especially in the US, the former Goldman Sachs banker added.
China produced about 79 per cent of the lithium hydroxide used in electric car batteries last year, according to consultancy CRU, a supply chain that has been disrupted by the virus outbreak and EV shortages in some markets.
Prices for lithium hydroxide rose 3.1 per cent last month, their first increase since May 2018, according to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, due to the impact of the Covid-19 bug.
Chinese lithium producer Ganfeng Lithium, which supplies major carmakers from Tesla to Volkswagen, said it had raised prices by less than 10 per cent, due to higher production costs and logistical difficulties.
“We can get lithium from lots of places . . . is that really something we’re prepared to rely upon?” Mr Graves said. “People are going to relook at supply chains, including battery recycling initiatives that enhance resilience, and relook at their integrity . . . and they’re going to say is there something we need to do to change our supply chains to make them more shockproof?”
General Motors last week said it was looking to source battery minerals such as lithium and nickel from North America for its new range of electric cars that will use cells made in Ohio by South Korea’s LG Chem.
“Some of these critical minerals could be challenging to obtain; it’s not just cobalt you need to be concerned about but also battery-grade nickel and lithium as well,” said Andy Oury, a lead engineer for batteries at GM. “We’re doing all of this with an eye to sourcing as much of the raw material from North America as possible.”
However, George Heppel, an analyst at CRU, warned it would be difficult to compete with China on costs. “China is always going to be the most competitive place to buy battery raw materials. That’s not likely to change anytime soon,” he said.
Livent, which extracts lithium from brines in northern Argentina, is looking at extracting the mineral from geothermal resources in the US and also wants to build a processing plant in Europe.
The Philadelphia-based company is also working with Canadian start-up E3 Metals to extract lithium from brines in Alberta's oil and gasfields for new projects in Canada.
“We’ll look at doing more in the US and more in Europe,” said Mr Graves, underscoring evolving Canada-U.S. collaboration across EV supply chains.
Ontario Battery Energy Storage anchors IESO strategy, easing peak demand and boosting grid reliability. Projects like Oneida BESS (250MW) and nearly 3GW procurements integrate renewables, wind and solar, enabling flexible, decarbonized power.
Key Points
Provincewide grid batteries help IESO manage peaks, integrate renewables, and strengthen reliability across Ontario.
✅ IESO forecasts 1,000MW peak growth by 2026
✅ Oneida BESS adds 250MW with 20-year contract
✅ Nearly 3GW storage procured via LT1 and other RFPs
Ontario’s electricity grid is facing increasing demand amid a looming supply crunch, prompting the province to invest heavily in battery energy storage systems (BESS) as a key solution. The Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) has highlighted that these storage technologies will be crucial for managing peak demand in the coming years.
Ontario's energy demands have been on the rise, driven by factors such as population growth, electric vehicle manufacturing, data center expansions, and heavy industrial activity. The IESO's latest assessment, and its work on enabling storage, covering the period from April 2025 to September 2026, indicates that peak demand will increase by approximately 1,000MW between the summer of 2025 and 2026. This forecasted rise in energy use is attributed to the acceleration of various sectors within the province, underscoring the need for reliable, scalable energy solutions.
A significant portion of this solution will be met by large-scale energy storage projects. Among the most prominent is the Oneida BESS, a flagship project that will contribute 250MW of storage capacity. This project, developed by a consortium including Northland Power and NRStor, will be located on land owned by the Six Nations of the Grand River. Expected to be operational soon, it will play a pivotal role in ensuring grid stability during high-demand periods. The project benefits from a 20-year contract with the IESO, guaranteeing payments that will support its financial viability, alongside additional revenue from participating in the wholesale energy market.
In addition to Oneida, Ontario has committed to acquiring nearly 3GW of energy storage capacity through various procurement programs. The 2023 Expedited Long-Term 1 (LT1) request for proposals (RfP) alone secured 881MW of storage, with additional projects in the pipeline. A notable example is the Hagersville Battery Energy Storage Park, which, upon completion, will be the largest such project in Canada. The success of these procurement efforts highlights the growing importance of BESS in Ontario's energy strategy.
The IESO’s proactive approach to energy storage is not only a response to rising demand but also a step toward decarbonizing the province’s energy system. As Ontario transitions away from traditional fossil fuels, BESS will provide the necessary flexibility to accommodate increasing renewable energy generation, a clean energy solution widely recognized in jurisdictions like New York, particularly from intermittent sources like wind and solar. By storing excess energy during periods of low demand and dispatching it when needed, these systems will help maintain grid stability, and as many utilities see benefits even without mandates, reduce reliance on fossil fuel-based power plants.
Looking ahead, Ontario's energy storage capacity is expected to grow significantly, complemented by initiatives such as the Hydrogen Innovation Fund, with projects from the 2023 LT1 RfP expected to come online by 2027. As more storage resources are integrated into the grid, the province is positioning itself to meet its rising energy needs while also advancing its environmental goals.
Ontario’s increasing reliance on battery energy storage is a clear indication of the province’s commitment to a sustainable and resilient energy future, aligning with perspectives from Sudbury sustainability advocates on the grid's future. With substantial investments in storage technology, Ontario is not only addressing current energy challenges but also paving the way for a cleaner, more reliable energy system in the years to come.
European Energy Market Crisis drives record natural gas and electricity prices across the EU, as LNG supply constraints, Russian pipeline dependence, marginal pricing, and renewables integration expose volatility in liberalised power markets.
Key Points
A 2021 surge in European gas and electricity prices from supply strains, demand rebounds, and marginal pricing exposure.
✅ Record TTF gas and day-ahead power prices across Europe
✅ LNG constraints and Russian pipeline dependence tightened supply
✅ Debate over marginal pricing vs regulated models intensifies
By Ronan Bolton
The year 2021 was a turbulent one for energy markets across Europe, as Europe's energy nightmare deepened across the region. Skyrocketing natural gas prices have created a sense of crisis and will lead to cost-of-living problems for many households, as wholesale costs feed through into retail prices for gas and electricity over the coming months.
This has created immediate challenges for governments, but it should also encourage us to rethink the fundamental design of our energy markets as we seek to transition to net zero, with many viewing it as a wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels across the bloc.
This energy crisis was driven by a combination of factors: the relaxation of Covid-19 lockdowns across Europe created a surge in demand, while cold weather early in the year diminished storage levels and contributed to increasing demand from Asian economies. A number of technical issues and supply-side constraints also combined to limit imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) into the continent.
Europe’s reliance on pipeline imports from Russia has once again been called into question, as Gazprom has refused to ride to the rescue, only fulfilling its pre-existing contracts. The combination of these, and other, factors resulted in record prices – the European benchmark price (the Dutch TTF Gas Futures Contract) reached almost €180/MWh on 21 December, with average day-ahead electricity prices exceeding €300/MWh across much of the continent in the following days.
Countries which rely heavily on natural gas as a source of electricity generation have been particularly exposed, with governments quickly put under pressure to intervene in the market.
In Spain the government and large energy companies have clashed over a proposed windfall tax on power producers. In Ireland, where wind and gas meet much of the country’s surging electricity demand, the government is proposing a €100 rebate for all domestic energy consumers in early 2022; while the UK government is currently negotiating a sector-wide bailout of the energy supply sector and considering ending the gas-electricity price link to curb bills.
This follows the collapse of a number of suppliers who had based their business models on attracting customers with low prices by buying cheap on the spot market. The rising wholesale prices, combined with the retail price cap previously introduced by the Theresa May government, led to their collapse.
While individual governments have little control over prices in an increasingly globalised and interconnected natural gas market, they can exert influence over electricity prices as these markets remain largely national and strongly influenced by domestic policy and regulation. Arising from this, the intersection of gas and power markets has become a key site of contestation and comment about the role of government in mitigating the impacts on consumers of rising fuel bills, even as several EU states oppose major reforms amid the price spike.
Given that renewables are constituting an ever-greater share of production capacity, many are now questioning why gas prices play such a determining role in electricity markets.
As I outline in my forthcoming book, Making Energy Markets, a particular feature of the ‘European model’ of liberalised electricity trade since the 1990s has been a reliance on spot markets to improve the efficiency of electricity systems. The idea was that high marginal prices – often set by expensive-to-run gas peaking plants – would signal when capacity limits are reached, providing clear incentives to consumers to reduce or delay demand at these peak periods.
This, in theory, would lead to an overall more efficient system, and in the long run, if average prices exceeded the costs of entering the market, new investments would be made, thus pushing the more expensive and inefficient plants off the system.
The free-market model became established during a more stable era when domestically-sourced coal, along with gas purchased on long-term contracts from European sources (the North Sea and the Netherlands), constituted a much greater proportion of electricity generation.
While prices fluctuated, they were within a somewhat predictable range, and provided a stable benchmark for the long-term contracts underpinning investment decisions. This is no longer the case as energy markets become increasingly volatile and disrupted during the energy transition.
The idea that free price formation in a competitive market, with governments standing back, would benefit electricity consumers and lead to more efficient systems was rooted in sound economic theory, and is the basis on which other major commodity markets, such as metals and agricultural crops, have been organised for decades.
The free-market model applied to electricity had clear limitations, however, as the majority of domestic consumers have not been exposed directly to real-time price signals. While this is changing with the roll-out of smart meters in many countries, the extent to which the average consumer will be willing or able to reduce demand in a predicable way during peak periods remains uncertain.
Also, experience shows that governments often come under pressure to intervene in markets if prices rise sharply during periods of scarcity, thus undermining a basic tenet of the market model, with EU gas price cap strategies floated as one option.
Given that gas continues to play a crucial role in balancing supply and demand for electricity, the options available to governments are limited, illustrating why rolling back electricity prices is harder than it appears for policymakers. One approach would be would be to keep faith with the liberalised market model, with limited interventions to help consumers in the short term, while ultimately relying on innovations in demand side technologies and alternatives to gas as a means of balancing systems with high shares of variable renewables.
An alternative scenario may see a return to old style national pricing policies, involving a move away from marginal pricing and spot markets, even as the EU prepares to revamp its electricity market in response. In the past, in particular during the post-WWII decades, and until markets were liberalised in the 1990s, governments have taken such an approach, centrally determining prices based on the costs of delivering long term system plans. The operation of gas plants and fuel procurement would become a much more regulated activity under such a model.
Many argue that this ‘traditional model’ better suits a world in which governments have committed to long-term decarbonisation targets, and zero marginal cost sources, such as wind and solar, play a more dominant role in markets and begin to push down prices.
A crucial question for energy policy makers is how to exploit this deflationary effect of renewables and pass-on cost savings to consumers, whilst ensuring that the lights stay on.
Despite the promise of storage technologies such as grid-scale batteries and hydrogen produced from electrolysis, aside from highly polluting coal, no alternative to internationally sourced natural gas as a means of balancing electricity systems and ensuring our energy security is immediately available.
This fact, above all else, will constrain the ambitions of governments to fundamentally transform energy markets.
Ronan Bolton is Reader at the School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh and Co-Director of the UK Energy Research Centre. His book Making Energy Markets: The Origins of Electricity Liberalisation in Europe is to be published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2022.
EIA U.S. Power Outlook 2023-2024 forecasts lower electricity demand, softer wholesale prices, and faster renewable growth from solar and wind, with steady natural gas, reduced coal generation, slight nuclear gains, and ERCOT market moderation.
Key Points
An EIA forecast of a 2023 demand dip, 2024 rebound, lower prices, and a higher renewable share in the U.S. power mix.
✅ Demand dips to 4,000 billion kWh in 2023; rebounds in 2024.
✅ ERCOT on-peak prices average about $35/MWh versus $80/MWh in 2022.
✅ Renewables grow to 24% share; coal falls to 17%; nuclear edges up.
U.S. power consumption is expected to slip about 1% in 2023 from the previous year as milder weather slows usage from the record high hit in 2022, consistent with recent U.S. consumption trends observed over the past several years, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said in its Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO).
EIA projected that electricity demand is on track to slide to 4,000 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) in 2023 from a historic high of 4,048 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) in 2022, reflecting patterns seen during COVID-19 demand shifts in prior years, before rising to 4,062 billion kWh in 2024 as economic growth ramps up.
Less demand coupled with more electricity generation from cheap renewable power sources and lower natural gas prices is forecast to slash wholesale power prices this year, the EIA said.
The on-peak wholesale price at the North hub in Texas’ ERCOT power market is expected to average about $35 per megawatt-hour (MWh) in 2023 compared with an average of nearly $80/MWh in 2022 after the 2022 price surge in power markets.
As capacity for renewables like solar and wind ramp up and as natural gas prices ease amid the broader energy crisis pressures, the EIA said it expects coal-fired power generation to be 17% less in the spring of 2023 than in the spring of 2022.
Coal will provide an average of 17% of total U.S. generation this year, down from 20% last year, as utilities shift investments toward electricity delivery and away from new power production, the EIA said.
The share of total generation supplied by natural gas is seen remaining at about the same this year at 39%. The nuclear share of generation is seen rising slightly to 20% this year from 19% in 2022. Generation from renewable energy sources grows the most in the forecast, increasing to 24% this year from a share of 22% last year, even as residential electricity bills rose in 2022 across the U.S.
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
