FOLSOM, California –
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FERC recently approved a historic $410 million settlement with JPMorgan, resolving an extensive investigation into market manipulation in the California and Michigan markets. Diligent market monitoring by the California Independent System Operator Corporation ISO to detect the bidding strategies and assist in the investigation has resulted in $124 million returning to California ratepayers.
The suspicious bidding behavior was first identified by the ISO in January 2011. The ISO gained quick approval by FERC to tighten market rules, limiting the financial exposure to the ISO market. JPMorgan, however, persisted in testing market rules, engaging in exploitative bidding behavior to capture tens of millions of dollars of excessive profits. After the ISO provided necessary evidence, FERC has acted to send every dollar in overcharges back to California ratepayers. With this settlement, FERC has exercised its full enforcement authority authorized by Congress under the Federal Power Act.
“The California ISO is extremely pleased with the FERC-ordered settlement with JPMorgan. This is a vindication for California ratepayers and for market participants who play by the rules and work to support an effective market,” said ISO General Counsel Nancy Saracino.
The fact that JPMorganÂ’s conduct was detected, stopped and punished illustrates the effectiveness of ongoing market oversight, which is essential for healthy competition. The California ISO continues to monitor energy trading with the same degree of vigilance the outcome of this case demonstrates.
“Our market safeguards are working,” Saracino added. “FERC’s office of enforcement acted swiftly when we reported the suspicious bidding behaviors, and this historic settlement demonstrates that FERC has delivered on its promise to protect the integrity of wholesale energy markets.”
In addition to the $68 million in disgorgement the ISO had requested in public filings with FERC since 2011, the settlement sends another $56 million back to California ratepayers associated with additional schemes the ISO market monitor had identified.
The settlement also references JPMorgan waiving all rights to pursue further legal proceedings. This includes a case JPMorgan filed in 2012, challenging the ISOÂ’s application of its tariff to mitigate high bids submitted by JPMorgan during times that the power plant units it controlled were needed for reliability purposes. To ensure that suppliers cannot exercise market power under certain conditions, FERC has approved rules requiring that suppliers be paid the market rate, rather than what they bid, when the units are needed for reliability.
The ISO applied those rules and mitigated JPMorganÂ’s bids throughout 2012. The tariff rule worked to mitigate significant excess costs of $227 million in 2012, almost all of which is attributable to JPMorgan units. Those dollars were never paid out to JPMorgan instead, JPMorgan received the same amount that other generators received for power that was delivered.
The second proceeding where JPMorgan is waiving its right to challenge an ISO action relates to a matter where the ISO had sought FERCÂ’s approval to resettle bid cost recovery payments because generators were overpaid due to a misapplication of the market rules.
In June of this year, FERC ruled that the ISO could recover $52 million from generators who were overpaid, approximately $35 million of which was paid to JPMorgan. JPMorgan challenged that FERC decision by filing a rehearing request. Under the conditions of the settlement, it will forego the challenge.
Codling Bank Offshore Wind Project will deliver a 1.1 GW offshore wind farm off the Wicklow coast, as EDF Renewables and Fred Olsen Renewables invest billions to support Ireland's CAP 2030 and cut carbon emissions.
Key Points
A 1.1 GW offshore wind farm off Co Wicklow, led by EDF and Fred Olsen, advancing Ireland's CAP 2030 targets.
✅ Up to 1.1 GW capacity; hundreds of turbines off Co Wicklow
✅ EDF Renewables partners with Fred Olsen Renewables
✅ Investment well over €2bn, supporting 70% electricity by 2030
It’s been previously estimated that the entire Codling Bank project, which will eventually see hundreds of wind turbines, such as a huge offshore wind turbine now coming to market, erected about 13km off the Co Wicklow coast, could be worth as much as €100m. The site is set to generate up to 1.1 gigawatts of electricity when it’s eventually operational.
It’s likely to cost well over €2bn to develop, and with new pipelines abroad where Long Island offshore turbine proposals are advancing, scale economies are increasingly relevant.
The other half of the project is owned by Norway’s Fred Olsen Renewables, with tens of millions of euro already reportedly spent on surveys and other works associated with the scheme. Initial development work started in 2003.
Mr Barrett will now continue to focus on his non-Irish renewable projects, at a time when World Bank wind power support is accelerating in developing countries, said Hazel Shore, the company that sold the stake. It added that Johnny Ronan and Conor Ronan, the developer’s brother, will retain an equity interest in the Codling project.
“The Hazel Shore shareholders remain committed to continuing their renewable and forestry businesses,” noted the firm, whose directors include Paddy Teahon, a former secretary of the Department of the Taoiseach and chairman of the National Offshore Wind Association of Ireland.
The French group’s EDF Renewables subsidiary will now partner with the Norwegian firm to develop and build the Codling Bank project, in a sector widely projected to become a $1 trillion business over the coming decades.
EDF pointed out that the acquisition of the Codling Bank stake comes after the government committed to reducing carbon emissions. A Climate Action Plan launched last year will see renewable projects generating 70pc of Ireland’s electricity by 2030, with more than a third of Irish electricity to be green within four years according to recent analysis. Offshore wind is expected to deliver at least 3.5GW of power in support of the objective.
Bruno Bensasson, EDF Group senior executive vice-president of renewable energies and the CEO of EDF Renewables said the French group is “committed to contributing to the Irish government’s renewables goals”.
“This important project clearly strengthens our strong ambition to be a leading global player in the offshore wind industry,” he added. “This is consistent with the CAP 2030 strategy that aims to double EDF’s renewable energy generation by 2030 and increase it to 50GW net.”
Matthieu Hue, the CEO of EDF Renewables UK and Ireland said the firm already has an office in Dublin and is looking for further renewable projects, as New York's biggest offshore wind farm moves ahead, underscoring momentum.
Last November, the ESB teamed up with EDF in Scotland, reflecting how UK offshore wind is powering up, with the Irish utility buying a 50pc stake in the Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind project. The massive wind farm is expected to generate up to 450MW of electricity and will cost about €2.1bn to develop.
EDF said work on that project is “well under way”.
ABO Wind Tunisia 10MW Solar Project will build a photovoltaic park in Gabes with a STEG PPA, fixed tariff, 2,500 m grid connection, producing 18 million kWh annually, targeted for 2020 commissioning with local partners.
Key Points
A 10MW photovoltaic park in Gabes with a 20-year STEG PPA and fixed tariff, slated for 2020 commissioning.
✅ 18 million kWh/year; 2,500 m grid tie, 20-year fixed tariff
✅ Electricity supplied to STEG under PPA; 2020 commissioning
✅ Located in Gabes; built with local partners, 10MW capacity
ABO Wind has received a permit and a tariff for a 10MW photovoltaic project in Tunisia, amid global activity such as Spain's 90MW wind project now underway, which it plans to build and commission in 2020.
The solar park, in the governorate of Gabes, is 400km south of the country’s capital Tunis and aligns with renewable funding initiatives seen across developing markets.
The developer said it plans to build the project next year in close cooperation with local partners, as regional markets from North Africa to the Gulf expand, with Saudi Arabia boosting wind capacity as well.
ABO Wind department head Nicolas Konig said: “The solar park will produce more than 18 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year and will feed it into the grid at a distance of 2500 metres.”
The developer will conclude an electricity supply contract with the state-owned energy supplier (Societe tunisienne de l’electricite et du gaz (STEG), which will provide a fixed remuneration over 20 years, a model echoed by Germany's wind-solar tender for the electricity fed into the grid.
Earlier this year, ABO Wind had already secured a tariff for a wind farm with a capacity of 30MW in a tender, 35km south-east of Tunis, underscoring Tunisia's wind investments under its long-term plan.
The company is working on half a dozen Tunisian wind and solar projects, as institutions like the World Bank support wind growth in developing countries.
“We are making good progress on our way to assemble a portfolio of several ready-to-build wind and solar projects attractive to investors, as Saudi clean energy targets continue to expand globally,” said ABO Wind general manager responsible for international business development Patrik Fischer.
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.
Iran Bushehr Earthquake rattles southern province near the Bushehr nuclear power plant, USGS reports M5.1 at 38 km depth; seismic activity along major fault lines raises safety, damage, and monitoring concerns.
Key Points
A magnitude 5.1 quake near Bushehr nuclear plant at 38 km depth, with no damage reported, per USGS.
✅ USGS lists magnitude 5.1 at 38 km depth
✅ Near Bushehr nuclear power plant; built for stronger quakes
✅ Iran lies on major fault lines; quake risk is frequent
A magnitude 5 earthquake struck southern Iran early Friday near the Islamic Republic's only nuclear power plant. There were no immediate reports of damage or injuries as Iran continues combined-cycle conversions across its power sector.
The quake hit Iran's Bushehr province at 5:23 a.m., according to the U.S. Geological Survey. It put the magnitude at 5.1 and the depth of the earthquake at 38 kilometres (24 miles), in a province tied to efforts to transmit electricity to Europe in coming years.
Iranian state media did not immediately report on the quake. However, the Bushehr nuclear power plant was designed to withstand much stronger earthquakes, a notable consideration as Iraq plans nuclear power plants to address shortages.
A magnitude 5 earthquake can cause considerable damage, including power disruptions that have seen blackouts spark protests in some Iranian cities.
Iran sits on major fault lines and is prone to near-daily earthquakes, yet it remains a key player in regional power, with Iran-Iraq energy cooperation ongoing. In 2003, a 6.6-magnitude quake flattened the historic city of Bam, killing 26,000 people, and today Iran supplies 40% of Iraq's electricity through cross-border power deals. Bam is near the Bushehr nuclear plant, which wasn’t damaged at that time, while more recently Iran finalized deals to rehabilitate Iraq's power grid to improve resilience.
New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.
Key Points
A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.
✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth
✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs
✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security
The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.
This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.
But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.
If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.
Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.
MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.
Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).
These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.
The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.
These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.
While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.
Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.
And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?
Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.
So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.
And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.
How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.
How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.
Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.
The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.
The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?
There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.
New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.
This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.
It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.
For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.
Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.
In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).
We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.
The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.
Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.
Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.
Siwash Creek Hydroelectric Project faces downsizing under a BC Hydro power purchase agreement, with run-of-river generation, high grid interconnection costs, First Nations partnership, and surplus electricity from Site C reshaping clean energy procurement.
Key Points
A downsized run-of-river plant in BC, co-owned by Kanaka Bar and Green Valley, selling power via a BC Hydro PPA.
✅ Approved at 500 kW under a BC Hydro clean-energy program
✅ Grid interconnection initially quoted at $2.1M
✅ Joint venture: Kanaka Bar and Green Valley Power
A small run-of-river hydroelectric project recently selected by B.C. Hydro for a power purchase agreement may no longer be financially viable.
The Siwash Creek project was originally conceived as a two-megawatt power plant by the original proponent Chad Peterson, who holds a 50-per-cent stake through Green Valley Power, with the Kanaka Bar Indian Band holding the other half.
The partners were asked by B.C. Hydro to trim the capacity back to one megawatt, but by the time the Crown corporation announced its approval, it agreed to only half that — 500 kilowatts — under its Standing Order clean-energy program.
“Hydro wanted to charge us $2.1 million to connect to the grid, but then they said they could reduce it if we took a little trim on the project,” said Kanaka Bar Chief Patrick Michell.
The revenue stream for the band and Green Valley Power has been halved to about $250,000 a year. The original cost of running the $3.7-million plant, including financing, was projected to be $273,000 a year, according to the Kanaka Bar economic development plan.
“By our initial forecast, we will have to subsidize the loan for 20 years,” said Michell. “It doesn’t make any sense.”
The Kanaka Band has already invested $450,000 in feasibility, hydrology and engineering studies, with a similar investment from Green Valley.
B.C. Hydro announced it would pursue five purchase agreements last March with five First Nations projects — including Siwash Creek — including hydro, solar and wind energy projects, as two new generating stations were being commissioned at the time. A purchase agreement allows proponents to sell electricity to B.C. Hydro at a set price.
However, at least ten other “shovel-ready” clean energy projects may be doomed while B.C. Hydro completes a review of its own operations and its place in the energy sector, where legal outcomes like the Squamish power project ruling add uncertainty, including B.C.’s future power needs.
With the 1,100-megawatt Site C Dam planned for completion in 2024, and LNG demand cited to justify it, B.C. Hydro now projects it will have a surplus of electricity until the early 2030s.
Even if British Columbians put 300,000 electric vehicles on the road over the next 12 years, amid BC Hydro’s first call for power, they will require only 300 megawatts of new capacity, the company said.
A long-term surplus could effectively halt all small-scale clean energy development, according to Clean Energy B.C., even as Hydro One’s U.S. coal plant remains online in the region.
“(B.C. Hydro) dropped their offer down to 500 kilowatts right around the time they announced their review,” said Michell. “So we filled out the paperwork at 500 kilowatts and (B.C. Hydro) got to make its announcement of five projects.”
In the new few weeks, Kanaka and Green Valley will discuss whether they can move forward with a new financial model or shelve the project, he said.
B.C. Hydro declined to comment on the rationale for downsizing Siwash Creek’s power purchase agreement.
The Kanaka Bar Band successfully operates a 49.9-megawatt run-of-river plant on Kwoiek Creek with partners Innergex Renewable Energy.
