Two EfW facilities proposed in UK

India Power Sector Crisis: a tangled market of underused plants, coal shortages, cross-subsidies, high transmission losses, and weak PPAs, requiring deregulation, power exchanges, and cost-reflective tariffs to fix insolvency and outages.

Key Points

India power market failure from subsidies, coal shortages, and losses, needing deregulation and reflective pricing.

✅ Deregulate to enable spot trading on power exchanges

✅ End cross-subsidies; charge cost-reflective tariffs

✅ Secure coal supply; cut T&D losses and theft

India's electricity industry is in a financial and political tangle.

Power producers sit on thousands of megawatts of underutilized plant, while consumers face frequent power cuts, both planned and unplanned.

Financially troubled generators struggle to escape insolvency proceedings. The state-owned banks that have mostly financed power utilities fear that debts of troubled utilities totaling 1.74 trillion rupees will soon go bad.

Aggressive bidding for supply contracts and slower-than-expected demand growth, including a recent demand slump in electricity use, is the root cause. The problems are compounded by difficulties in securing coal and other fuels, high transmission losses, electricity theft and cash-starved distribution companies.

But India's 36 state and union territory governments are contributing mightily to this financial and economic mess. They persist with populist cross-subsidies -- reducing charges for farmers and households at the cost of nonagricultural businesses, especially energy-intensive manufacturing sectors such as steel.

The states refuse to let go of their control over how electricity is produced, distributed and consumed. And they are adamant that true markets, with freedom for large industrial users to buy power at market-determined rates from whichever utility they want at power exchanges -- will not become a reality in India.

State politicians are driven mainly by the electoral need to appease farmers, India's most important vote bank, who have grown used to decades of nearly-free power.

New Delhi is therefore relying on short-term fixes instead of attempting to overhaul a defunct system. Users must pay the real cost of their electricity, as determined by a properly integrated national market free of state-level interference if India's power mess is to be really addressed.

As of Aug. 31, the country's total installed production capacity was 344,689 MW, underscoring its status as the third-largest electricity producer globally by output. Out of that, thermal power comprising coal, gas and diesel accounted for 64%, hydropower 13% and renewables accounted for 20%. Commercial and industrial users accounted for 55% of consumption followed by households on 25% and the remaining 20% by agriculture.

Coal-fired power generation, which contributes roughly 90% of thermal output and the bulk of the financially distressed generators, is the most troubled segment as it faces a secular decline in tariffs due to increasing competition from highly subsidized renewables (which also benefit from falling solar panel costs), coal shortages and weak demand.

The Central Electricity Act (CEA) 2003 opened the gates of the country's power sector for private players, who now account for 45% of generating capacity.

But easy credit, combined with an overconfident estimation of the risks involved, emboldened too many investors to pile in, without securing power purchase agreements (PPAs) with distribution companies.

As a result, power capacity grew at an annual compound rate of 11% compared to demand at 6% in the last decade leading to oversupply.

This does not mean that the electricity market is saturated. Merely that there are not enough paying customers. Distributors have plenty of consumers who will not or cannot pay, even though they have connections. There is huge unmet demand for power. There are 32 million Indian homes -- roughly 13% of the total -- mostly rural and poor with no access to electricity.

Moreover, consumption by those big commercial and industrial users which do not enjoy privileged rates is curbed by high prices, driven up by the cost of subsidizing others, extra charges on exchange-traded power and transmission and distribution losses (including theft) of 20-30%.

With renewables increasingly becoming cheaper, financially stressed distributors are avoiding long-term power purchase agreements, preferring spot markets. Meanwhile, coal shortages force generators to buy expensive imported coal supplies or cut output. The operating load for most private generators, which suffer particularly acute coal shortages in compared to state-owned utilities, has fallen from 84% in 2009-2010 to 55% now.

Smoothing coal supplies should be the top priority. Often coal is denied to power generators without long-term purchase contracts. Such discrimination in coal allocation prevails -- because the seller (state-run Coal India and its numerous subsidiaries) is an inefficient monopolist which cannot produce enough and rations coal supplies, favoring state-run generators over private.

To help power producers, New Delhi plans measures including auctioning power sales contracts with assured access to coal. However, even though coal and electricity shortages eased recently, such short-term fixes won't solve the problem. With electricity prices in secular decline, distributors are not seeking long-term supply contracts -- rather they are often looking for excuses to get out of existing agreements.

India needs a fundamental two-step reform. First, the market must be deregulated to allow most bulk suppliers and users to move to power trading exchanges, which currently account for just 10% of the market.

This would lead to genuine price discovery in a spot market and, in time, lead to the trading of electricity futures contracts. That would help in consumers and producers hedge their respective costs and revenues and safeguard their economic positions without any need for government intervention.

The second step to a healthy electricity industry is for consumers to pay the real cost of power. Cross-subsidization must end. That would promote optimal electricity use, innovation and environmental protection. Farmers enjoying nearly-free power create ecological problems by investing in water-guzzling crops such as rice and sugar cane.

Most industrial consumers, who do not have power supply privileges, have their businesses distorted and delayed by high prices. Lowering their costs would encourage power-intensive manufacturing to expand, and in the process, boost electricity demand and improve capacity utilization.

Of course, cutting theft is central to making consumers pay their way. Government officials must stop turning a blind eye to theft, especially when such transmission and distribution losses average 20%.

Politicians who want to continue subsidizing farmers or assist the poor can do so by paying cash out directly to their bank accounts, instead of wrongly relying on the power sector.

Such market-oriented reforms have long been blocked by state-level politicians, who now enjoy the influence born of operating subsidies and interfering in the sector. New Delhi must address this opposition. Narendra Modi, as a self-styled reforming prime minister, should have the courage to bite this bullet and convince state governments (starting with those ruled by his Bharatiya Janata Party) to reform. To encourage cooperation, he could offer states securing real improvements an increased share of centrally collected taxes.

Ritesh Kumar Singh is to be the chief economist of the new policy research and advocacy company Indonomics Consulting. He is former assistant director of the Finance Commission of India.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

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

Key Points

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

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

✅ Facilities risk loss of REC certification for environmental violations

✅ PSC may investigate nonreporting; AG reviewing evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All those plants have sold credits in Maryland.

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nova Scotia Integrated Resource Plan evaluates NSPI supply options, UARB oversight, Muskrat Falls imports, coal retirements, wind and biomass expansion, transmission upgrades, storage, and least-cost pathways to decarbonize the grid for ratepayers.

Key Points

A 25-year roadmap assessing supply, imports, costs, and emissions to guide least-cost decarbonization for Nova Scotia.

✅ Compares wind, biomass, gas, imports, and storage costs

✅ Addresses coal retirements, emissions caps, and reliability

✅ Recommends transmission upgrades and Muskrat Falls utilization

Maintaining a viable electricity network requires good long-term planning and, as a recent grid operations report notes, ongoing operational improvements. The existing stock of generating assets can become obsolete through aging, changes in fuel prices or environmental considerations. Future changes in demand must be anticipated.

Periodically, an integrated resource plan is created to predict how all this will add up during the ensuing 25 years. That process is currently underway and is led by Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) and will be submitted for approval to the Utilities and Review Board (UARB).

Coal-fired plants are still the largest single source of electricity in Nova Scotia. They need to be replaced with more environmentally friendly sources when they reach the end of their useful lives. Other sources include wind, hydroelectricity from rivers, biomass, as seen in increased biomass use by NS Power, natural gas and imports from other jurisdictions.

Imports are used sparingly today but will be an important source when the electricity from Muskrat Falls comes on stream. That project has big capacity. It can produce all the power needed in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), where Quebec's power ambitions influence regional flows, plus the amount already committed to Nova Scotia, and still have a lot left over.

Some sources of electricity are more valuable than others. The daily amount of power from wind and solar cannot be controlled. Fuel-based sources and hydro can.

Utilities make their profits by providing the capital necessary to build infrastructure. Most of the money is borrowed but a portion, typically 30 per cent, usually comes from NSPI or a sister company. On that they receive a rate of return of nine per cent. Nova Scotia can borrow money today at less than two per cent.

The largest single investment of that type is the $1.577-billion Maritime Link connecting power from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia. It continues through to the New Brunswick border to facilitate exports to the United States. NSPI’s sister company, NSP Maritime Link Inc. (NSPML), is making nine per cent on $473 million of the cost.

There is little unexploited hydro capacity in Nova Scotia and there will not be any new coal-fired plants. Large-scale solar is not competitive in Nova Scotia’s climate. Nova Scotia’s needs would not accommodate the amount of nuclear capacity needed to be cost-effective, even as New Brunswick explores small reactors in its strategy.

So the candidates for future generating resources are wind, natural gas, biomass (though biomass criticism remains) and imports from other jurisdictions. Tidal is a promising opportunity but is still searching for a commercially viable technology. 

NSPI is commendably transparent about its process (irp.nspower.ca). At this stage there is little indication of the conclusions they are reaching but that will presumably appear in due course.

The mountains of detail might obscure the fact that NSPI is not an unbiased arbiter of choices for the future.

It is reported that they want to prematurely close the Trenton 5 coal plant in 2023-25. It is valued at $88.5 million. If it is closed early, ratepayers will still have to pay off the remaining value even though the plant will be idle. NSPI wants to plan a decommissioning of five of its other seven plants. There is a federal emissions constraint but retiring coal plants earlier than needed will cost ratepayers a lot.

Whenever those plants are closed, there will be a need for new sources of power. NSPI is proposing to plan for new investments in new transmission infrastructure to facilitate imports. Other possibilities would be additional wind farms, consistent with the shift to more wind and solar projects, thermal plants that burn natural gas or biomass, or storage for excess wind power that arrives before it can be used. The investment in storage could be anywhere from $20 million to $200 million.

These will add to the asset burden funded by ratepayers, even as industrial customers seek discounts while still paying for shuttered coal infrastructure.

External sources of new power will not provide NSPI the same opportunity: wind power by independent producers might be less expensive because they are willing to settle for less than nine per cent or because they are more efficient. Buying more power from Muskrat Falls will use transmission infrastructure we are already paying for. If a successful tidal technology is found, it will not be owned by NSPI or a sister company, which are no longer trying to perfect the technology.

This is not to suggest that NSPI would misrepresent the alternatives. But they can tilt the discussion in their favour. How tough will they be negotiating for additional Muskrat Falls power when it hurts their profits? Arguing for premature coal retirement on environmental grounds is fair game but whether the cost should be accepted is a political choice. 

NSPI is in a conflict of interest. We need a different process. An independent body should author the integrated resource plan. They should be fully informed about NSPI’s views.

They should communicate directly with Newfoundland and Labrador for Muskrat power, with independent wind producers, and with tidal power companies. The UARB cannot do any of these things.

The resulting plan should undergo the same UARB review that NSPI’s version would. This enhances the likelihood that Nova Scotians will get the least-cost alternative.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Electricity Rebate Extension provides $50 monthly credits, utility bill relief, and an natural gas rebate, supporting homes, farms, and small businesses with energy costs through December 2022, capped at 250 MWh per year.

Key Points

A provincial program extending $50 credits and energy relief, with a natural gas rebate for eligible consumers in 2022.

✅ Up to $300 in bill credits; auto-applied to eligible accounts

✅ Applies to whole bill; limit 250 MWh/year consumption

✅ Natural gas rebate triggers above $6.50/GJ Oct-Mar 2023

Alberta's electricity rebate program has been extended by three months amid an electricity price spike in Alberta, and will now be in effect until the end of December, the government said.

The program was originally to provide more than 1.9 million homes, farms and small businesses with $50 monthly credits on their electricity bills, complementing a consumer price cap on power bills, for July, August and September. It will now also cover the final three months of 2022.

Those eligible for the rebate could receive up to $300 in credits until the end of December, a relief for Alberta ratepayers facing deferral costs.

The program, designed to provide relief to Albertans hit hard by high utility bills and soaring energy prices, will cost the Alberta government $600 million.

Albertans who have consumed electricity within the past calendar year, up to a maximum of 250 megawatt hours per year, are eligible for the rebates, which will be automatically applied to consumer bills, as seen in Ontario electricity bill support initiatives.

The rebates will apply to the entire bill, similar to a lump-sum credit in Newfoundland and Labrador, not just the energy portion, the government said. The rebates will be automatic and no application will be needed.

Starting October, the government will enact a natural gas rebate program until March 2023 that will kick in when prices exceed $6.50 per gigajoule, and Alberta's consumer price cap on electricity will remain in place.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC Hydro Asset Management Audit confirms disciplined oversight of dams, generators, power lines, substations, and transformers, with robust lifecycle planning, reliability metrics, and capital investment sustaining aging infrastructure and near full-capacity performance.

Key Points

Audit confirming BC Hydro's asset governance and lifecycle planning, ensuring safe, reliable grid infrastructure.

✅ $25B in assets; many facilities operating near full capacity.

✅ 80% of assets are dams, generators, lines, poles, substations, transformers.

✅ $2.5B invested in renewal, repair, and replacement in fiscal 2018.

A report by B.C.’s auditor-general says B.C. Hydro is doing a good job managing the province’s dams, generating stations and power lines, including storm response during severe weather events.

Carol Bellringer says in the audit that B.C. Hydro’s assets are valued at more than $25 billion and even though some generating facilities are more than 85 years old they continue to operate near full-capacity and can accommodate holiday demand peaks when needed.

The report says about 80 per cent of Hydro’s assets are dams, generators, power lines, poles, substations and transformers that are used to provide electrical service to B.C., where residential electricity use shifted during the pandemic.

The audit says Hydro invested almost $2.5 billion to renew, repair or replace the assets it manages during the last fiscal year, ending March 31, 2018, and, in a broader context, bill relief has been offered to only part of the province.

Bellringer’s audit doesn’t examine the $10.7 billion Site C dam project, which is currently under construction in northeast B.C. and not slated for completion until 2024.

She says the audit examined whether B.C. Hydro has the information, practices, processes and systems needed to support good asset management, at a time when other utilities are dealing with pandemic impacts on operations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

U.S. Utility Spending Shift highlights rising transmission and distribution costs, grid modernization, and smart meters, while generation expenses decline amid fuel price volatility, capital and labor pressures, and renewable integration across the power sector.

Key Points

A decade-long trend where utilities spend more on delivery and grid upgrades, and less on electricity generation costs.

✅ Delivery O&M, wires, poles, and meters drive rising costs

✅ Generation spending declines amid fuel price changes and PPI

✅ Grid upgrades add reliability, resilience, and renewable integration

Over the past decade, major utilities in the United States have been spending more on delivering electricity to customers and less on producing that electricity, a shift occurring as electricity demand is flat across many regions.

After adjusting for inflation, major utilities spent 2.6 cents per kilowatthour (kWh) on electricity delivery in 2010, using 2020 dollars. In comparison, spending on delivery was 65% higher in 2020 at 4.3 cents/kWh, and residential bills rose in 2022 as inflation persisted. Conversely, utility spending on power production decreased from 6.8 cents/kWh in 2010 (using 2020 dollars) to 4.6 cents/kWh in 2020.

Utility spending on electricity delivery includes the money spent to build, operate, and maintain the electric wires, poles, towers, and meters that make up the transmission and distribution system. In real 2020 dollar terms, spending on electricity delivery increased every year from 1998 to 2020 as utilities worked to replace aging equipment, build transmission infrastructure to accommodate new wind and solar generation amid clean energy transition challenges that affect costs, and install new technologies such as smart meters to increase the efficiency, reliability, resilience, and security of the U.S. power grid.

Spending on power production includes the money spent to build, operate, fuel, and maintain power plants, as well as the cost to purchase power in cases where the utility either does not own generators or does not generate enough to fulfill customer demand. Spending on electricity production includes the cost of fuels including natural gas prices alongside capital, labor, and building materials, as well as the type of generators being built.

Other utility spending on electricity includes general and administrative expenses, general infrastructure such as office space, and spending on intangible goods such as licenses and franchise fees, even as electricity sales declined in recent years.

The retail price of electricity reflects the cost to produce and deliver power, the rate of return on investment that regulated utilities are allowed, and profits for unregulated power suppliers, and, as electricity prices at 41-year high have been reported, these components have drawn increased scrutiny.

In 2021, demand for consumer goods and the energy needed to produce them has been outpacing supply, though power demand sliding in 2023 with milder weather has also been noted. This difference has contributed to higher prices for fuels used by electric generators, especially natural gas. The increased cost for fuel, capital, labor, and building materials, as seen in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Producer Price Index, is increasing the cost of power production for 2021. U.S. average electricity prices have been higher every month of this year compared with 2020, according to our Monthly Electric Power Industry Report.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News