Nuclear liability law stalls reactor contract

Finland Shadow Fleet Cable Investigation details suspected Russia-linked sabotage of Baltic Sea undersea cables, AIS dark activity, and false-flag tactics threatening critical infrastructure, prompting NATO and EU vigilance against hybrid warfare across Northern Europe.

Key Points

Finland probes suspected sabotage of undersea cables by a Russia-linked vessel using flag of convenience and AIS off.

✅ Undersea cable damage in Baltic Sea sparks security alerts

✅ Suspected shadow fleet ship ran AIS dark under false flag

✅ NATO and EU boost maritime surveillance, critical infrastructure

In December 2024, Finland launched an investigation into a ship allegedly linked to Russia’s “shadow fleet” following a series of incidents involving damage to undersea cables. The investigation has raised significant concerns in Finland and across Europe, as it suggests possible sabotage or other intentional acts related to the disruption of vital communication and energy infrastructure in the Baltic Sea region. This article explores the key details of the investigation, the role of Russia’s shadow fleet, and the broader geopolitical implications of this event.

The "Shadow Fleet" and Its Role

The term “shadow fleet” refers to a collection of ships, often disguised or operating under false flags, that are believed to be part of Russia's covert maritime operations. These vessels are typically used for activities such as smuggling, surveillance, and potentially military operations, mirroring the covert hacker infrastructure documented by researchers in related domains. In recent years, the "shadow fleet" has been under increasing scrutiny due to its involvement in various clandestine actions, especially in regions close to NATO member countries and areas with sensitive infrastructure.

Russia’s "shadow fleet" operates in the shadows of regular international shipping, often difficult to track due to the use of deceptive practices like turning off automatic identification systems (AIS). This makes it difficult for authorities to monitor their movements and assess their true purpose, raising alarm bells when one of these ships is suspected of being involved in damaging vital infrastructure like undersea cables.

The Cable Damage Incident

The investigation was sparked after damage was discovered to an undersea cable in the Baltic Sea, a vital link for communication, data transmission, and energy supply between Finland and other parts of Europe. These undersea cables are crucial for everything from internet connections to energy grid stability, with recent Nordic grid constraints underscoring their importance, and any disruption to them can have serious consequences.

Finnish authorities reported that the damage appeared to be deliberate, raising suspicions of potential sabotage. The timing of the damage coincides with a period of heightened tensions between Russia and the West, particularly following the escalation of the war in Ukraine, with recent strikes on Ukraine's power grid highlighting the stakes, and ongoing geopolitical instability. This has led many to speculate that the damage to the cables could be part of a broader strategy to undermine European security and disrupt critical infrastructure.

Upon further investigation, a vessel that had been in the vicinity at the time of the damage was identified as potentially being part of Russia’s "shadow fleet." The ship had been operating under a false flag and had disabled its AIS system, making it challenging for authorities to track its movements. The vessel’s activities raised red flags, and Finnish authorities are now working closely with international partners to ascertain its involvement in the incident.

Geopolitical Implications

The damage to undersea cables and the suspected involvement of Russia’s "shadow fleet" have broader geopolitical implications, particularly in the context of Europe’s security landscape. Undersea cables are considered critical infrastructure, akin to electric utilities where intrusions into US control rooms have been documented, and any deliberate attack on them could be seen as an act of war or an attempt to destabilize regional security.

In the wake of the investigation, there has been increased concern about the vulnerability of Europe’s energy and communication networks, which are increasingly reliant on these undersea connections, and as the Baltics pursue grid synchronization with the EU to reduce dependencies, policymakers are reassessing resilience measures. The European Union, alongside NATO, has expressed growing alarm over potential threats to this infrastructure, especially as tensions with Russia continue to escalate.

The incident also highlights the growing risks associated with hybrid warfare tactics, which combine conventional military actions with cyberattacks, including the U.S. condemnation of power grid hacking as a cautionary example, sabotage, and disinformation campaigns. The targeting of undersea cables could be part of a broader strategy by Russia to disrupt Europe’s ability to coordinate and respond effectively, particularly in the context of ongoing sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

Furthermore, the suspected involvement of a "shadow fleet" ship raises questions about the transparency and accountability of maritime activities in the region. The use of vessels operating under false flags or without identification systems complicates efforts to monitor and regulate shipping in international waters. This has led to calls for stronger maritime security measures and greater cooperation between European countries to ensure the safety and integrity of critical infrastructure.

Finland’s Response and Ongoing Investigation

In response to the cable damage incident, Finnish authorities have mobilized a comprehensive investigation, seeking to determine the extent of the damage and whether the actions were deliberate or accidental. The Finnish government has called for increased vigilance and cooperation with international partners to identify and address potential threats to undersea infrastructure, drawing on Symantec's Dragonfly research for insights into hostile capabilities.

Finland, which shares a border with Russia and has been increasingly concerned about its security in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, has ramped up its defense posture. The damage to undersea cables serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities that come with an interconnected global infrastructure, and Finland’s security services are likely to scrutinize the incident as part of their broader defense strategy.

Additionally, the incident is being closely monitored by NATO and the European Union, both of which have emphasized the importance of safeguarding critical infrastructure. As an EU member and NATO partner, Finland’s response to this situation could influence how Europe addresses similar challenges in the future.

The investigation into the damage to undersea cables in the Baltic Sea, allegedly linked to Russia’s "shadow fleet," has significant implications for European security. The use of covert operations, including the deployment of ships under false flags, underscores the growing threats to vital infrastructure in the region. With tensions between Russia and the West continuing to rise, the potential for future incidents targeting critical communication and energy networks is a pressing concern.

As Finland continues its investigation, the incident highlights the need for greater international cooperation and vigilance in safeguarding undersea cables and other critical infrastructure. In a world where hybrid warfare tactics are becoming increasingly common, ensuring the security of these vital connections will be crucial for maintaining stability in Europe. The outcome of this investigation may serve as a crucial case study in the ongoing efforts to protect infrastructure from emerging and unconventional threats.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

BC Hydro Electricity Imports shape CleanBC claims as Powerex trades cross-border electricity, blending hydro with coal and gas supplies, affecting emissions, grid carbon intensity, and how electric vehicles and households assess "clean" power.

Key Points

Powerex buys power for BC Hydro, mixing hydro with coal and gas, shifting emissions and affecting CleanBC targets.

✅ Powerex trades optimize price, not carbon intensity

✅ Imports can include coal- and gas-fired generation

✅ Emissions affect EV and CleanBC decarbonization claims

British Columbians naturally assume they’re using clean power when they fire up holiday lights, juice up a cell phone or plug in a shiny new electric car. 

That’s the message conveyed in advertisements for the CleanBC initiative launched by the NDP government, amid indications that residents are split on going nuclear according to a survey, which has spent $3.17 million on a CleanBC “information campaign,” including almost $570,000 for focus group testing and telephone town halls, according to the B.C. finance ministry.

“We’ll reduce air pollution by shifting to clean B.C. energy,” say the CleanBC ads, which feature scenic photos of hydro reservoirs. “CleanBC: Our Nature. Our Power. Our Future.” 

Yet despite all the bumph, British Columbians have no way of knowing if the electricity they use comes from a coal-fired plant in Alberta or Wyoming, a nuclear plant in Washington, a gas-fired plant in California or a hydro dam in B.C. 

Here’s why. 

BC Hydro’s wholly-owned corporate subsidiary, Powerex Corp., exports B.C. power when prices are high and imports power from other jurisdictions when prices are low. 

In 2018, for instance, B.C. imported more electricity than it exported — not because B.C. has a power shortage (it has a growing surplus due to the recent spate of mill closures and the commissioning of two new generating stations in B.C.) but because Powerex reaps bigger profits when BC Hydro slows down generators to import cheaper power, especially at night.

“B.C. buys its power from outside B.C., which we would argue is not clean,” says Martin Mullany, interim executive director for Clean Energy BC. 

“A good chunk of the electricity we use is imported,” Mullany says. “In reality we are trading for brown power” — meaning power generated from conventional ‘dirty’ sources such as coal and gas. 

Wyoming, which generates almost 90 per cent of its power from coal, was among the 12 U.S. states that exported power to B.C. last year. (Notably, B.C. did not export any electricity to Wyoming in 2018.)

Utah, where coal-fired power plants produce 70 per cent of the state’s energy amid debate over the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity, and Montana, which derives about 55 per cent of its power from coal, also exported power to B.C. last year. 

So did Nebraska, which gets 63 per cent of its power from coal, 15 per cent from nuclear plants, 14 per cent from wind and three per cent from natural gas.   

Coal is responsible for about 23 per cent of the power generated in Arizona, another exporter to B.C., while gas produces about 44 per cent of the electricity in that state.  

In 2017, the latest year for which statistics are available, electricity imports to B.C. totalled just over 1.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, according to the B.C. environment ministry — roughly the equivalent of putting 255,000 new cars on the road, using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s calculation of 4.71 tonnes of annual carbon emissions for a standard passenger vehicle. 

These figures far outstrip the estimated local and upstream emissions from the contested Woodfibre LNG plant in Squamish that is expected to release annual emissions equivalent to 170,000 new cars on the road.

Import emissions cast a new light on B.C.’s latest “milestone” announcement that 30,000 electric cars are now among 3.7 million registered vehicles in the province.

BC Electric Vehicles Announcement Horgan Heyman Mungall Weaver
In November of 2018 the province announced a new target to have all new light-duty cars and trucks sold to be zero-emission vehicles by the year 2040. Photo: Province of B.C. / Flickr

“Making sure more of the vehicles driven in the province are powered by BC Hydro’s clean electricity is one of the most important steps to reduce [carbon] pollution,” said the November 28 release from the energy ministry, noting that electrification has prompted a first call for power in 15 years from BC Hydro.

Mullany points out that Powerex’s priority is to make money for the province and not to reduce emissions.

“It’s not there for the cleanest outcome,” he said. “At some time we have to step up to say it’s either the money or the clean power, which is more important to us?”

Electricity bought and sold by little-known, unregulated Powerex
These transactions are money-makers for Powerex, an opaque entity that is exempt from B.C.’s freedom of information laws. 

Little detailed information is available to the public about the dealings of Powerex, which is overseen by a board of directors comprised of BC Hydro board members and BC Hydro CEO and president Chris O’Reilly. 

According to BC Hydro’s annual service plan, Powerex’s net income ranged from $59 million to $436 million from 2014 to 2018. 

“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.” 

Powerex’s CEO Tom Bechard — the highest paid public servant in the province — took home $939,000 in pay and benefits last year, earning $430,000 of his executive compensation through a bonus and holdback based on his individual and company performance.  

“The problem is that all of the trade goes on at Powerex and Powerex is an unregulated entity,” Mullany says. 

“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.” 

In 2018, Powerex exported 8.7 million megawatt hours of electricity to the U.S. for a total value of almost $570 million, according to data from the Canada Energy Regulator. That same year, Powerex imported 9.6 million megawatt hours of electricity from the U.S. for almost $360 million. 

Powerex sold B.C.’s publicly subsidized power for an average of $87 per megawatt hour in 2018, according to the Canada Energy Regulator. It imported electricity for an average of $58 per megawatt hour that year. 

In an emailed statement in response to questions from The Narwhal, BC Hydro said “there can be a need to import some power to meet our electricity needs” due to dam reservoir fluctuations during the year and from year to year.

‘Impossible’ to determine if electricity is from coal or wind power
Emissions associated with electricity imports are on average “significantly lower than the emissions of a natural gas generating plant because we mostly import electricity from hydro generation and, increasingly, power produced from wind and solar,” BC Hydro claimed in its statement. 

But U.S. energy economist Robert McCullough says there’s no way to distinguish gas and coal-fired U.S. power exports to B.C. from wind or hydro power, noting that “electrons lack labels.” 

Similarly, when B.C. imports power from Alberta, where generators are shifting to gas and 48.5 per cent of electricity production is coal-fired and 38 per cent comes from natural gas, there’s no way to tell if the electricity is from coal, wind or gas, McCullough says.

“It really is impossible to make that determination.” 

Wyoming Gilette coal pits NASA
The Gillette coal pits in Wyoming, one of the largest coal-producers in the U.S. Photo: NASA Earth Observatory

Neither the Canada Energy Regulator nor Statistics Canada could provide annual data on electricity imports and exports between B.C. and Alberta. 

But you can watch imports and exports in real time on this handy Alberta website, which also lists Alberta’s power sources. 

In 2018, California, Washington and Oregon supplied considerably more power to B.C. than other states, according to data from Canada Energy Regulator. 

Washington, where about one-quarter of generated power comes from fossil fuels, led the pack, with more than $339 million in electricity exports to B.C. 

California, which still gets more than half of its power from gas-fired plants even though it leads the U.S. in renewable energy with substantial investments in wind, solar and geothermal, was in second place, selling about $18.4 million worth of power to B.C. 

And Oregon, which produces about 43 per cent of its power from natural gas and six per cent from coal, exported about $6.2 million worth of electricity to B.C. last year. 

By comparison, Nebraska’s power exports to B.C. totalled about $1.6 million, Montana’s added up to $1.3 million,  Nevada’s were about $706,000 and Wyoming’s were about $346,000.

Clean electrons or dirty electrons?
Dan Woynillowicz, deputy director of Clean Energy Canada, which co-chaired the B.C. government’s Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council, says B.C. typically exports power to other jurisdictions during peak demand. 

Gas-fired plants and hydro power can generate electricity quickly, while coal-fired power plants take longer to ramp up and wind power is variable, Woynillowicz notes. 

“When you need power fast and there aren’t many sources that can supply it you’re willing to pay more for it.”

Woynillowicz says “the odds are high” that B.C. power exports are displacing dirty power.

Elsewhere in Canada, analysts warn that Ontario's electricity could get dirtier as policies change, raising similar concerns.

“As a consumer you never know whether you’re getting a clean electron or a dirty electron. You’re just getting an electron.” 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Pennsylvania Electricity Market Deregulation has driven competitive pricing, leveraged low-cost natural gas, and spurred private investment, jobs, and efficient power plants, while nuclear subsidies threaten wholesale market signals and long-term consumer savings.

Key Points

Policy that opens generation to competition, leverages cheap gas, lowers rates, and resists subsidies for nuclear plants.

✅ Competitive wholesale pricing benefits consumers statewide

✅ Gas-driven plants add efficient, flexible capacity and jobs

✅ Nuclear subsidies distort market signals and raise costs

For decades, the government regulation of Pennsylvania's electricity markets dictated all aspects of power generation resources in the state, thus restricting market-driven prices for consumers and hindering new power plant development and investment.

Deregulation has enabled competitive markets to drive energy prices downward, as recent grid auction payouts fell 64% indicate, which has transformed Pennsylvania from a higher-electricity-cost state to one with prices below the national average.

Recently, the economic advantage of abundant low-cost natural gas has spurred an influx of billions of dollars of private capital investment and thousands of jobs to construct environmentally responsible natural gas power generation facilities throughout the commonwealth — including our three power generation facilities in operation and one presently under construction.

Calpine is an independent power provider with a national portfolio of 80 highly efficient power plants in operation or under construction with an electric generating capacity of approximately 26,000 megawatts. Collectively, these resources can provide sufficient power for more than 30 million residential homes. We are not a regulated utility receiving a guaranteed rate of return on investment. Rather, Calpine competes to sell wholesale power into the electric markets, and the economics of supply and demand are fundamental to the success of our business.

Pennsylvania's deregulated electricity market is working. Consumers are benefiting from low-cost natural gas, as broader evidence shows competition benefits consumers and the environment across markets, and companies such as Calpine are investing billions of dollars and creating thousands of jobs to build advanced, energy efficient, environmentally responsible and flexible power generating facilities.

There are presently seven electric generating projects under construction in the commonwealth, representing about a $7 billion capital investment that will produce about 7,000 megawatts of efficient electrical power, with additional facilities being planned.

Looking back 20 years following the enactment of the Pennsylvania Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act, Pennsylvania's regulators and policymakers must conclude that the results of a free and fair market-driven structure have delivered indisputable benefits to the consumer, even amid potential winter rate spikes for residents, and the Pennsylvania economy.

While consumers are now reaping the benefits of open and competitive electricity markets, we see challenges on the horizon that could threaten the foundation of those markets. Due to pressure from nuclear power generators, state policymakers throughout the nation have been increasing efforts to impact the generation mix in their respective states by offering ratepayer funded subsidies to existing nuclear generation resources or by considering a market structure overhaul in New England.

Subsidizing one power generation type over others is having a significant, negative impact on wholesale electric markets, competitive retails markets and ultimately the cost the consumer will have to pay, and can exacerbate disruptions in coal and nuclear industries that strain the economy and risk brownouts.

In Pennsylvania, these subsidies would follow nearly $9 billion already paid by ratepayers to help the commonwealth's nuclear industry transition from regulated to competitive energy markets.

The deregulation of Pennsylvania's electricity markets in the late 1990s allowed the nuclear industry to receive billions of dollars from ratepayers to recover "stranded costs" related to investments in the commonwealth's nuclear plants. These costs were negotiated amounts based on settlements with Pennsylvania's Public Utility Commission to allow the nuclear industry to prepare and transition to competitive electricity markets.

Enough is enough. Regulatory or governmental interference in well functioning markets does not lead to better outcomes. Pennsylvania's state Legislature should not pick winners and losers by enacting legislation that would create an uneven playing field that subsidizes nuclear generating resources in the commonwealth.

William Ferguson is regional vice president for Calpine Corp.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EU Gas Price Cap Strategies aim to curb inflation during an energy crisis by capping wholesale gas and electricity generation costs, balancing supply and demand, mitigating subsidies, and safeguarding supply security amid Russia-Ukraine shocks.

Key Points

Temporary EU measures to cap gas and power prices, curb inflation, manage demand, and protect supply security.

✅ Flexible temporary price limits to secure gas supplies

✅ Framework cap on gas for electricity generation with demand checks

✅ Risk: subsidies, higher demand, and market distortions

The European Commission has outlined possible strategies to cap gas prices as the bloc faces a looming energy crisis this winter. 

Member states are divided over the emergency measures designed to pull down soaring inflation amid Russia's war in Ukraine. 

One proposal is a temporary "flexible" limit on gas prices to ensure that Europe can continue to secure enough gas, EU energy commissioner Kadri Simson said on Tuesday. 

Another option could be an EU-wide "framework" for a price cap on gas used to generate electricity, which would be combined with measures to ensure gas demand does not rise as a result, she said.

EU leaders are meeting on Friday to debate gas price cap strategies amid warnings that Europe's energy nightmare could worsen this winter.

Last week, France, Italy, Poland and 12 other EU countries urged the Commission to propose a broader price cap targeting all wholesale gas trade. 

But Germany -- Europe's biggest gas buyer -- and the Netherlands are among those opposing electricity market reforms within the bloc.

Russia has slashed gas deliveries to Europe since its February invasion of Ukraine, with Moscow blaming the cuts on Western sanctions imposed in response to the invasion, as the EU advances a plan to dump Russian energy across the bloc.

Since then, the EU has agreed on emergency laws to fill gas storage and windfall profit levies to raise money to help consumers with bills. 

Price cap critics
One energy analyst told Euronews that an energy price cap was an "unchartered territory" for the European Union. 

The EU's energy sector is largely liberalised and operates under the fundamental rules of supply and demand, making rolling back electricity prices complex in practice.

"My impression is that member states are looking at prices and quantities in isolation and that's difficult because of economics," said Elisabetta Cornago, a senior energy researcher at the Centre for European Reform.

"It's hard to picture such a level of market intervention This is uncharted territory."

The energy price cap would "quickly start costing billions" because it would force governments to continually subsidise the difference between the real market price and the artificially capped price, another expert said. 

"If you are successful and prices are low and you still get gas, consumers will increase their demand: low price means high demand. Especially now that winter is coming," said Bram Claeys, a senior advisor at the Regulatory Assistance Project. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Clean Energy Tax Incentives could expand under Democratic proposals, including ITC, PTC, and EV tax credits, boosting renewable energy, energy storage, and grid modernization within a broader infrastructure package influenced by Green New Deal goals.

Key Points

Federal incentives like ITC, PTC, and EV credits that cut costs and speed renewables, storage, and grid upgrades.

✅ Proposes permanence for ITC, PTC, and EV tax credits

✅ Could accelerate solar, wind, storage, and grid upgrades

✅ Passage depends on bipartisan infrastructure compromise

The 115th U.S. Congress has not even adjourned for the winter, and already a newly resurgent Democratic Party is making demands that reflect its majority status in the U.S. House come January.

Climate appears to be near the top of the list. Last Thursday, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the Democratic Leader in the Senate, sent a letter to President Trump demanding that any infrastructure package taken up in 2019 include “policies and funding to transition to a clean energy economy and mitigate the risks that the United States is already facing due to climate change.”

And in a list of policies that Schumer says should be included, the top item is “permanent tax incentives for domestic production of clean electricity and storage, energy efficient homes and commercial buildings, electric vehicles, and modernizing the electric grid.”

In concrete terms, this could mean an extension of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar and energy storage, the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind and the federal electric vehicle (EV) tax credit program as well.

Pressure from the Left

This strong statement on climate change, clean energy and infrastructure investment comes as at least 30 incoming members of the U.S. House of Representatives have signed onto a call for the creation of a committee to explore a “Green New Deal” and to move the nation to 100% renewable energy by 2030.*

It also comes as Schumer has come under fire by activists for rumors that he plans to replace Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) with coal state Democrat Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) as the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

As such, one possible way to read these moves is that centrist leaders like Schumer are responding to pressure from an energized and newly elected Left wing of the Democratic Party. It is notable that Schumer’s program includes many of the aims of the Green New Deal, while avoiding any explicit use of that phrase.

Implications of a potential ITC extension

The details of levels and timelines are important here, particularly for the ITC.

The ITC was set to expire at the end of 2016, but was extended in legislative horse-trading at the end of 2015 to a schedule where it remains at 30% through the end of 2019 and then steps down for the next three years, and disappears entirely for residential projects. Since that extension the IRS has issued guidance around the use of co-located energy storage, as well as setting a standard under which PV projects can claim the ITC for the year that they begin construction.

This language around construction means that projects can start work in 2019, complete in 2023 and still claim the 30% ITC, and this may be why we at pv magazine USA are seeing an unprecedented boom in project pipelines across the United States.

Of course, if the ITC were to become permanent some of those projects would be pushed out to later years. But as we saw in 2016, despite an extension of the ITC many projects were still completed before the deadline, leading to the largest volume of PV installed in the United States in any one year to date.

This means that if the ITC were extended by the end of 2020, we could see the same thing all over again – a boom in projects created by the expected sunset, and then after a slight lull a continuation of growth.

Or it is possible that a combination of raw economics, increased investor and utility interest, and accelerating renewable energy mandates will cause solar growth rates to continue every year, and that any changes in the ITC will only be a bump against a larger trend.

While the basis for expiration of the EV tax credit is the number of vehicles sold, not any year, both the battery storage and EV industries, which many see at an inflection point, could see similar effects if the ITC and EV tax credits are made permanent.

Will consensus be reached?

It is also unclear that any such infrastructure package will be taken up by Republicans, or that both parties will be able to come to a compromise on this issue. While the U.S. Congress passed an infrastructure bill in 2017, given the sharp and growing differences between the two parties, and divergent trade approaches such as the 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs, it is not clear that they will be able to come to a meaningful compromise during the next two years.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

ERCOT Winter Capacity RFP seeks up to 3,000 MW through generation and demand response to bolster Texas grid reliability during peak load, leveraging Reliability Must-Run, incentive factors, and EEA risk mitigation for the 2023-24 season.

Key Points

An ERCOT initiative to procure 3,000 MW of generation and demand response to reduce EEA risk and improve reliability.

✅ Targets 3,000 MW from generation and demand response

✅ Uses RMR-style contracts with flexible incentive factors

✅ Aims to lower EEA probability below 10% this winter

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) issued a request for proposals to stakeholders to procure up to 3,000 MW of generation or demand response capacity to meet load and reserve requirements during the winter 2023-24 peak load season (Dec. 1, 2023, through Feb. 29, 2024), amid ongoing Texas power grid challenges across the region.

ERCOT cited “several factors, including significant peak load growth since last winter, recent and proposed retirements of dispatchable Generation Resources, and recent extreme winter weather events, including Winter Storm Elliott in December 2022, Winter Storm Uri in February 2021, and the 2018 and 2011 winter storms, each of which resulted in abnormally high demand during winter weather.” It now seeks additional capacity under its “authority to prevent an anticipated Emergency Condition,” reflecting nationwide blackout risks identified by grid experts.

In its notice regarding the RFP, ERCOT identified a number of mothballed and recently decommissioned generation resources that may be eligible to offer capacity under the RFP. It further stated that offers must comport with the format of its “Reliability Must-Run” agreement but could include a proposed “Incentive Factor” that reflects the revenues the unit owners determine would be necessary to bring the unit back to operation. It added that the Incentive Factor is not necessarily limited to 10%. Providers of eligible demand response can submit offers based on similar principles that are not necessarily constrained by cost. The notice identifies potential acceptable sources of demand response, describes certain parameters for the kinds of demand response that are permitted to respond to the RFP, and outlines the time periods during which ERCOT must be able to deploy the demand response resources to improve electricity reliability across the system.

To meet the Dec. 1, 2023, service start date, ERCOT developed an aggressive timeline to solicit and evaluate proposals through the RFP. Responses to the RFP are due Nov. 6, 2023. ERCOT’s schedule provides that it will notify market participants that obtain awards on Nov. 23, 2023. Expect contracts to be executed by Nov. 30, 2023.

Unlike Regional Transmission Organizations in the Northeastern United States, ERCOT does not have a capacity market. Instead, ERCOT relies on a high price cap of $5,000 per MWh for its energy market (decreased from the $9,000 per MWh cap in effect during Winter Storm Uri) and an Operating Reserve Demand Curve adder that pays additional funds to generators supplying power and ancillary services, an area recently scrutinized for improper payments when supply conditions are tight. In the wake of Winter Storm Uri, some calls were made to have ERCOT adopt a capacity market for reliability reasons, and a number of legal battles continue to play out in the wake of Winter Storm Uri. (See recent McGuireWoods legal alert “Winter Storm Uri Power Dispute Reaches the Supreme Court of Texas.”) Though a capacity market was not adopted, the Texas Legislature approved a $7.2 billion loan program, widely described as an electricity market bailout for generators, to build up to 10,000 MW of dispatchable generation. The legislature also approved a version of the Public Utility Commission of Texas’ proposal to establish a “Performance Credit Mechanism,” but with a cost cap of $1 billion.

The loss of life and economic impacts of Winter Storm Uri in 2021, along with the energy crunches and calls for conservation this past summer, are driving changes to ERCOT’s “energy-only” market, including electricity market reforms under consideration. Texas policymakers are providing multiple financial incentives to promote investment in dispatchable on-demand generation, and voters will consider funding to modernize generation measures this year to make the Texas grid more reliable and able to deal with power demand from a growing economy and increased demand for electricity driven by weather. In the meantime, ERCOT’s plan to procure 3,000 MW through this RFP process is a stopgap measure intended to bolster reliability for the upcoming winter season and lower the probability of load shed in the event of severe winter weather.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News