OPAÂ’s Community Challenge Day August 14

British Columbia electricity rate increase will raise BC Hydro bills 3.75% over 2025-2026 to fund infrastructure, Site C, and clean energy, balancing affordability, reliability, and energy security while keeping prices below the North American average.

Key Points

BC will raise BC Hydro rates 3.75% in 2025-2026, about $3.75/month, to fund grid upgrades, Site C, and clean energy.

✅ 3.75% over 2025-2026; about $3.75/month on $100 average bill

✅ Funds Site C, grid maintenance, and clean energy capacity

✅ Keeps BC Hydro rates below North American averages

British Columbia's electricity rates will experience a 3.75% increase over the next two years, following an earlier 3% rate increase approval that set the stage, as confirmed by the provincial government on March 17, 2025. The announcement was made by Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions, Adrian Dix, who emphasized the decision's necessity for maintaining BC Hydro’s infrastructure while balancing affordability for residents.

For most households, the increase will amount to an additional $3.75 per month, based on an average BC Hydro bill of $100, though some coverage framed an earlier phase as a BC Hydro $2/month proposal that later evolved. While this may seem modest, the increase reflects a broader strategy to stabilize the utility's rates amidst economic challenges and ensure long-term energy security for the province.

Reasons Behind the Rate Hike

The rate increase comes during a period of rising costs in both global markets and local economies. According to Dix, the economic uncertainty stemming from trade dynamics and inflation has forced the government to act. Despite these pressures, and after a prior B.C. rate freeze to moderate impacts, the increase remains below cumulative inflation over the last several years, a move designed to shield consumers from the full force of these economic changes.

Dix also noted that, when adjusted for inflation, electricity rates in British Columbia in 2025 are effectively at the same price they were four decades ago. This stability, he argued, underscores the provincial government’s commitment to keeping rates as low as possible for residents, even as operating costs rise.

“We must take urgent action to protect British Columbians from the uncertainty posed by rising costs while building a strong, resilient electricity system for the long-term benefit of B.C.’s energy independence,” Dix said. He also highlighted the government's approach to minimizing the financial burden on consumers by keeping electricity costs well below the North American average.

Infrastructure and Maintenance Costs

The primary justification for the rate increase is to allow BC Hydro to continue its critical infrastructure development, including the Site C hydroelectric project, which is expected to become operational in the coming years. The increased costs of maintaining and upgrading the province's electricity grid also contribute to the need for higher rates.

The Site C project, a massive hydroelectric dam under construction on the Peace River, is expected to provide a substantial increase in clean, renewable energy capacity. However, such large-scale projects require significant investment and maintenance, both of which have contributed to the increased operating costs for BC Hydro.

A Strategic Move for Rate Stability

The provincial government has been clear that the rate increase will allow for a continuation of infrastructure development while keeping the rates manageable for consumers. The 3.75% increase will be spread across two years, with the first hike scheduled for April 1, 2025, reflecting the typical April rate changes BC Hydro implements, and the second for April 1, 2026.

Dix confirmed that the rate hike would still keep electricity costs among the lowest in North America, noting that British Columbians pay about half of what residents in Alberta pay for electricity. This is part of a broader effort by the provincial government to provide stable energy pricing while bolstering the transition to clean energy solutions, such as the Site C project and other renewable energy initiatives.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although the government has framed the increase as a necessary measure to ensure the province's long-term energy independence and reliability, the rate hikes are likely to face scrutiny from residents, particularly those already struggling with the rising cost of living, even as provinces like Ontario face their own Ontario hydro rate increase pressures this fall.

Public reactions to utility rate increases are often contentious, as residents feel the pressure of rising prices across various sectors, from housing to healthcare. However, the government has promised that the new rates will remain manageable, especially considering the relatively low rate increases compared to inflation and other regions where Manitoba Hydro scaled back a planned increase to temper impacts.

Furthermore, the increase comes as part of a broader strategy that aims to keep the overall impact on consumers as low as possible. Minister Dix emphasized that these rate increases were intended to ensure the continued reliability of BC Hydro’s services, without overwhelming ratepayers.

Long-Term Goals

Looking ahead, the province's strategy centers on not only maintaining affordable electricity rates but also reinforcing the importance of renewable energy, while some jurisdictions consider a 2.5% annual increase plan over multiple years to stabilize their grids. As climate change becomes an increasingly pressing issue, BC’s investments in clean energy projects like Site C aim to provide sustainable power for generations to come.

The government’s long-term vision involves building a resilient, energy-independent province that can weather future economic and environmental challenges. In this context, the rate increases are framed not just as a response to immediate inflationary pressures but as a necessary step in preparing BC’s energy infrastructure for the future.

The 3.75% rate increase set for 2025 and 2026 represents a balancing act between managing the financial health of BC Hydro and protecting consumers from higher costs. While the increase will have a modest effect on household bills, the long-term goal is to build a more robust and sustainable electricity system for British Columbia’s future. Through investments in clean energy and strategic infrastructure development, the province aims to keep electricity rates competitive while positioning itself as a leader in energy independence and climate action.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Biden Clean Energy Plan 2035 accelerates carbon-free electricity with renewables, nuclear, hydropower, and biomass, invests $2T in EVs, grid and energy efficiency, and tightens fuel economy standards beyond the Clean Power Plan.

Key Points

A $2T U.S. climate plan for carbon-free power by 2035, boosting renewables, nuclear, EVs, efficiency, and grid upgrades.

✅ Targets a zero-carbon electric grid nationwide by 2035

✅ Includes renewables, nuclear, hydropower, and biomass in standard

✅ Funds EVs, grid modernization, weatherization, and fuel economy rules

This month the Democratic presumptive presidential nominee, Joe Biden, outlined an ambitious plan, including Biden’s solar plan to expand clean energy, for tackling climate change that shows how far the party has shifted on the issue since it controlled the White House.

President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan had called for the electricity sector to cut its carbon pollution 32 percent by 2030, and did not lay out a trajectory for phasing out oil, coal or natural gas production.

This year, Democratic 2020 hopefuls such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) went much further, suggesting the United States should derive all of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030, moving to 100% renewables as part of a $16.3 trillion plan to wean the nation away from fossil fuels. Many other congressional Democrats have embraced the Green New Deal — the nonbinding resolution calling for a carbon-free power sector by 2030 and more energy efficient buildings and vehicles, along with a massive investment in electric vehicles and high-speed rail.

Last year, 38 percent of U.S. electricity generated came from clean sources, according to a Washington Post analysis of data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and in April renewables hit a record 28% nationwide.

Biden’s new plan, which carries a price tag of $2 trillion, would eliminate carbon emissions from the electric sector by 2035, impose stricter gas mileage standards, fund investments to weatherize millions of homes and commercial buildings, and upgrade the nation’s transportation system. To reach its 2035 carbon-free electricity goal, the campaign includes wind, solar and several forms of energy, acknowledging why the grid isn’t yet 100% renewable while balancing reliability, that are not always counted in state renewable portfolio standards, such as nuclear, hydropower and biomass.

“A great appeal of the Biden proposal is that it is much closer to targeting carbon directly, which is the ultimate enemy, and plays fewer favorites with particular technologies,” said Michael Greenstone, who directs the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute. “This will reduce the costs to consumers and give more carbon bang for the buck.”

But some environmentalists, such as Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica, question the idea of including more controversial carbon-free technologies. “There is no role for nuclear in a least-cost, low carbon world. Including these dinosaurs in a clean energy standard is going to incentivize industry efforts to keep aging, dangerous facilities online,” Pica said in an email.

Hydropower, which relies on a system of moving water that constantly recharges, is defined as renewable by the Environmental Protection Agency. Biomass is often considered as carbon neutral because even though it releases carbon dioxide when it is burned, the plants capture nearly the same amount of CO2 while growing.

Both forms of energy have come under fire for their environmental impacts, however. Damming streams and rivers can destroy fish habitat and make it more difficult for them to spawn, and it also seems unlikely that hydropower will expand its current 6 percent share of the nation’s electrical grid.

Many experts argue that classifying biomass energy as carbon neutral provides an incentive to cut down trees that would otherwise remain standing and sequester carbon. “If burning this wood were good for the climate, then we should not recycle paper, we should burn it,” noted Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs.

Illinois lead the nation in the amount of electricity generated from nuclear power

More than half of the country — 30 states, Washington, and three territories — have adopted a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and seven states and one territory have set renewable energy goals. While 14 states, along with the District, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, have established requirements of 50 percent or more carbon-free electricity, nearly as many have set theirs at 15 percent or less.

Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D), who has called for 100% renewable electricity in the state, has pushed clean electricity aggressively since taking office in 2019, lifting a wind energy moratorium imposed by her predecessor and signing bills aimed at expanding the state’s carbon-free energy sources. Biomass accounts for a quarter of the state’s electricity, more than any other state.

New York has one of the country’s most ambitious climate targets, which it scaled up last year. It aims to obtain 70 percent of its power from renewable sources within a decade, a period when renewables surpassed coal in U.S. generation, and eliminate carbon altogether by 2040, even as the state is in the process of shutting down a major nuclear plant near New York City, Indian Point, which is slated to cease operating on April 30, 2021.

... while other states are weakening theirs

Last year, Ohio weakened its renewable energy standard from a target of 12.5 percent in 2027 to 8.5 percent by 2026, even as renewables topped coal nationwide for the first time in over a century, without setting any future goals, and jettisoned its energy efficiency standard. West Virginia — which established modest renewable requirements in 2009 — repealed them altogether in 2015, the year they were set to take effect.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

US Utilities Shift From Coal as natural gas stays cheap, renewables like wind and solar scale, Clean Power Plan uncertainty lingers, and investors, state policies, and emissions targets drive generation choices and accelerate retirements.

Key Points

A long-term shift by utilities from coal to cheap natural gas, expanding renewables, and lower-emission generation.

✅ Cheap natural gas undercuts coal on price and flexibility.

✅ Renewables costs falling; wind and solar add competitive capacity.

✅ State policies and investors sustain emissions reductions.

When President Donald Trump signed an executive order last week to sweep away Obama-era climate change regulations, he said it would end America's "war on coal", usher in a new era of energy production and put miners back to work.

But the biggest consumers of U.S. coal - power generating companies - remain unconvinced about efforts to replace Obama's power plant overhaul with a lighter-touch approach.

Reuters surveyed 32 utilities with operations in the 26 states that sued former President Barack Obama's administration to block its Clean Power Plan, the main target of Trump's executive order. The bulk of them have no plans to alter their multi-billion dollar, years-long shift away from coal, suggesting demand for the fuel will keep falling despite Trump's efforts.

The utilities gave many reasons, mainly economic: Natural gas - coal’s top competitor - is cheap and abundant; solar and wind power costs are falling; state environmental laws remain in place; and Trump's regulatory rollback may not survive legal challenges, as rushed pricing changes draw warnings from energy groups.

Meanwhile, big investors aligned with the global push to fight climate change – such as the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund – have been pressuring U.S. utilities in which they own stakes to cut coal use.

"I’m not going to build new coal plants in today’s environment," said Ben Fowke, CEO of Xcel Energy, which operates in eight states and uses coal for about 36 percent of its electricity production. "And if I’m not going to build new ones, eventually there won’t be any."

Of the 32 utilities contacted by Reuters, 20 said Trump's order would have no impact on their investment plans; five said they were reviewing the implications of the order; six gave no response. Just one said it would prolong the life of some of its older coal-fired power units.

North Dakota's Basin Electric Power Cooperative was the sole utility to identify an immediate positive impact of Trump's order on the outlook for coal.

"We're in the situation where the executive order takes a lot of pressure off the decisions we had to make in the near term, such as whether to retrofit and retire older coal plants," said Dale Niezwaag, a spokesman for Basin Electric. "But Trump can be a one-termer, so the reprieve out there is short."

Trump's executive order triggered a review aimed at killing the Clean Power Plan and paving the way for the EPA's Affordable Clean Energy rule to replace it, though litigation is ongoing. The Obama-era law would have required states, by 2030, to collectively cut carbon emissions from existing power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels. It was designed as a primary strategy in U.S. efforts to fight global climate change.

The U.S. coal industry, without increases in domestic demand, would need to rely on export markets for growth. Shipments of U.S. metallurgical coal, used in the production of steel, have recently shown up in China following a two-year hiatus - in part to offset banned shipments from North Korea and temporary delays from cyclone-hit Australian producers.

RETIRING AND RETROFITTING

Coal had been the primary fuel source for U.S. power plants for the last century, but its use has fallen more than a third since 2008 after advancements in drilling technology unlocked new reserves of natural gas.

Hundreds of aging coal-fired power plants have been retired or retrofitted. Huge coal mining companies like Peabody Energy Corp and Arch Coal fell into bankruptcy, and production last year hit its lowest point since 1978.

The slide appears likely to continue: U.S. power companies now expect to retire or convert more than 8,000 megawatts of coal-fired plants in 2017 after shutting almost 13,000 MW last year, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration and Thomson Reuters data.

Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, acknowledged Trump's efforts would not return the coal industry to its "glory days," but offered some hope.

"There may not be immediate plans for utilities to bring on more coal, but the future is always uncertain in this market," he said.

Many of the companies in the Reuters survey said they had been focused on reducing carbon emissions for a decade or more while tracking 2017 utility trends that reinforce long-term planning, and were hesitant to change direction based on shifting political winds in Washington D.C.

"Utility planning typically takes place over much longer periods than presidential terms of office," Berkshire Hathaway Inc-owned Pacificorp spokesman Tom Gauntt said.

Several utilities also cited falling costs for wind and solar power, which are now often as cheap as coal or natural gas, thanks in part to government subsidies for renewable energy and recent FERC decisions affecting the grid.

In the meantime, activist investors have increased pressure on U.S. utilities to shun coal.

In the last year, Norway's sovereign wealth fund, the world's largest, has excluded more than a dozen U.S. power companies - including Xcel, American Electric Power Co Inc and NRG Energy Inc - from its investments because of their reliance on coal-fired power.

Another eight companies, including Southern Co and NorthWestern Corp, are "under observation" by the fund.

Wyoming-based coal miner Cloud Peak Energy said it doesn't blame utilities for being lukewarm to Trump's order.

"For eight years, if you were a utility running coal, you got the hell kicked out of you," said Richard Reavey, a spokesman for the company. "Are you going to turn around tomorrow and say, 'Let's buy lots of coal plants'? Pretty unlikely."

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

U.S. Russian Uranium Import Ban reshapes nuclear fuel supply, bolstering energy security, domestic enrichment, and sanctions policy while diversifying reactor-grade uranium sources and supply chains through allies, waivers, and funding to sustain utilities and reliability.

Key Points

A U.S. law halting Russian uranium imports to boost energy security diversify nuclear fuel and revive U.S. enrichment.

✅ Cuts Russian revenue; reduces geopolitical risk.

✅ Funds U.S. enrichment; supports reactor fuel supply.

✅ Enables waivers to prevent utility shutdowns.

In a move aimed at reducing reliance on Russia and fostering domestic energy security for the long term, the United States has banned imports of Russian uranium, a critical component of nuclear fuel. This decision, signed into law by President Biden in May 2024, marks a significant shift in the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain and has far-reaching economic and geopolitical implications.

For decades, Russia has been a major supplier of enriched uranium, a processed form of uranium used to power nuclear reactors. The U.S. relies on Russia for roughly a quarter of its enriched uranium needs, feeding the nation's network of 94 nuclear reactors operated by utilities which generate nearly 20% of the country's electricity. This dependence has come under scrutiny in recent years, particularly following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The ban on Russian uranium is a multifaceted response. First and foremost, it aims to cripple a key revenue stream for the Russian government. Uranium exports are a significant source of income for Russia, and by severing this economic tie, the U.S. hopes to weaken Russia's financial capacity to wage war.

Second, the ban serves as a national energy security measure. Relying on a potentially hostile nation for such a critical resource creates vulnerabilities. The possibility of Russia disrupting uranium supplies, either through political pressure or in the event of a wider conflict, is a major concern. Diversifying the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain mitigates this risk.

Third, the ban is intended to revitalize the domestic uranium mining and enrichment industry, building on earlier initiatives such as Trump's uranium order announced previously. The U.S. has historically been a major uranium producer, but environmental concerns and competition from cheaper foreign sources led to a decline in domestic production. The ban, coupled with $2.7 billion in federal funding allocated to expand domestic uranium enrichment capacity, aims to reverse this trend.

The transition away from Russian uranium won't be immediate. The law includes a grace period until mid-August 2024, and waivers can be granted to utilities facing potential shutdowns if alternative suppliers aren't readily available. Finding new sources of enriched uranium will require forging partnerships with other uranium-producing nations like Kazakhstan, Canada on minerals cooperation, and Australia.

The long-term success of this strategy hinges on several factors. First, successfully ramping up domestic uranium production will require overcoming regulatory hurdles and addressing environmental concerns, alongside nuclear innovation to modernize the fuel cycle. Second, securing reliable alternative suppliers at competitive prices is crucial, and supportive policy frameworks such as the Nuclear Innovation Act now in law can help. Finally, ensuring the continued safe and efficient operation of existing nuclear reactors is paramount.

The ban on Russian uranium is a bold move with significant economic and geopolitical implications. While challenges lie ahead, the potential benefits of a more secure and domestically sourced nuclear fuel supply chain are undeniable. The success of this initiative will be closely watched not only by the U.S. but also by other nations seeking to lessen their dependence on Russia for critical resources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

CO2 Tax for UK Offshore Energy Efficiency can accelerate adoption of aero-derivative gas turbines, flare gas recovery, and combined cycle power, reducing emissions on platforms like Equinor's Mariner and supporting net zero goals.

Key Points

A carbon price pushing operators to adopt efficient turbines, flare recovery, and combined cycle to cut emissions.

✅ Aero-derivative turbines beat industrial units on efficiency

✅ Flare gas recovery cuts routine flaring and fuel waste

✅ Combined cycle raises efficiency and lowers emissions

By Tom Baxter

The recent Energy Voice article from the Equinor chairman concerning the Mariner project heralding a ‘significant point of reference’ for growth highlighted the energy efficiency achievements associated with the platform.

I view energy efficiency as a key enabler to net zero, and alongside this the UK must start large-scale storage to meet system needs; it is a topic I have been involved with for many years.

As part of my energy efficiency work, I investigated Norwegian practices and compared them with the UK.

There were many differences, here are three;

1. Power for offshore installations is usually supplied from gas turbines burning fuel from the oil and gas processing plant, and even as the UK's offshore wind supply accelerates, installations convert that to electricity or couple the gas turbine to a machine such as a gas compressor.

There are two main generic types of gas turbine – aero-derivative and industrial. As the name implies aero-derivatives are aviation engines used in a static environment. Aero-derivative turbines are designed to be energy efficient as that is very import for the aviation industry.

Not so with industrial type gas turbines; they are typically 5-10% less efficient than a comparable aero-derivative.

Industrial machines do have some advantages – they can be cheaper, require less frequent maintenance, they have a wide fuel composition tolerance and they can be procured within a shorter time frame.

My comparison showed that aero-derivative machines prevailed in Norway because of the energy efficiency advantages – not the case in the UK where there are many more offshore industrial gas turbines.

Tom Baxter is visiting professor of chemical engineering at Strathclyde University and a retired technical director at Genesis Oil and Gas Consultants

2. Offshore gas flaring is probably the most obvious source of inefficient use of energy with consequent greenhouse gas emissions.

On UK installations gas is always flared due to the design of the oil and gas processing plant.

Though not a large quantity of gas, a continuous flow of gas is routinely sent to flare from some of the process plant.

In addition the flare requires pilot flames to be maintained burning at all times and, while Europe explores electricity storage in gas pipes, a purge of hydrocarbon gas is introduced into the pipes to prevent unsafe air ingress that could lead to an explosive mixture.

On many Norwegian installations the flare system is designed differently. Flare gas recovery systems are deployed which results in no flaring during continuous operations.

Flare gas recovery systems improve energy efficiency but they are costly and add additional operational complexity.

3. Returning to gas turbines, all UK offshore gas turbines are open cycle – gas is burned to produce energy and the very hot exhaust gases are vented to the atmosphere. Around 60 -70% of the energy is lost in the exhaust gases.

Some UK fields use this hot gas as a heat source for some of the oil and gas treatment operations hence improving energy efficiency.

There is another option for gas turbines that will significantly improve energy efficiency – combined cycle, and in parallel plans for nuclear power under the green industrial revolution aim to decarbonise supply.

Here the exhaust gases from an open cycle machine are taken to a separate turbine. This additional turbine utilises exhaust heat to produce steam with the steam used to drive a second turbine to generate supplementary electricity. It is the system used in most UK power stations, even as UK low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 across the grid.

Open cycle gas turbines are around 30 – 40% efficient whereas combined cycle turbines are typically 50 – 60%. Clearly deploying a combined cycle will result in a huge greenhouse gas saving.

I have worked on the development of many UK oil and gas fields and combined cycle has rarely been considered.

The reason being is that, despite the clear energy saving, they are too costly and complex to justify deploying offshore.

However that is not the case in Norway where combined cycle is used on Oseberg, Snorre and Eldfisk.

What makes the improved Norwegian energy efficiency practices different from the UK – the answer is clear; the Norwegian CO2 tax.

A tax that makes CO2 a significant part of offshore operating costs.

The consequence being that deploying energy efficient technology is much easier to justify in Norway when compared to the UK.

Do we need a CO2 tax in the UK to meet net zero – I am convinced we do. I am in good company. BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Total are supporting a carbon tax.

Not without justification there has been much criticism of Labour’s recent oil tax plans, alongside proposals for state-owned electricity generation that aim to reshape the power market.

To my mind Labour’s laudable aims to tackle the Climate Emergency would be much better served by supporting a CO2 tax that complements the UK's coal-free energy record by strengthening renewable investment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News