Cameco and Zircatec relicensing decisions forthcoming

Texas Electric Cooperatives outperformed during Winter Storm Uri, with higher customer satisfaction, equitable rolling blackouts, and stronger grid reliability compared to deregulated markets, according to ERCOT-area survey data of regulated utilities and commercial providers.

Key Points

Member-owned utilities in Texas delivering power, noted for reliability and fair outages during Winter Storm Uri.

✅ Member-owned, regulated utilities serving local communities

✅ Rated higher for blackout management and communication

✅ Operate outside deregulated markets; align incentives with users

Winter Storm Uri began to hit parts of Texas on February 13, 2021 and its onslaught left close to 4.5 million Texas homes and businesses without power, and many faced power and water disruptions at its peak. By some accounts, the preliminary number of deaths attributed to the storm is nearly 200, and the economic toll for the Lone Star State is estimated to be as high as $295 billion. 

The more than two-thirds of Texans who lost power during this devastating storm were notably more negative than positive in their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, mirrored by a rise in electricity complaints statewide, with one exception. That exception are the members of the more than 60 electric cooperatives operating within the Texas Interconnection electrical grid, which, in sharp contrast to the customers of the commercial utilities that provide power to the majority of Texans, gave their local utility a positive evaluation related to its performance during the storm.

In order to study Winter Storm Uri’s impact on Texas, the Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston conducted an online survey during the first half of March of residents 18 and older who live in the 213 counties (91.5% of the state population) served by the Texas power grid, which is managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). 

Three-quarters of the survey population (75%) live in areas with a deregulated utility market, where a specified transmission and delivery utility by region is responsible for delivering the electricity (purchased from one of a myriad of private companies by the consumer) to homes and businesses. The four main utility providers are Oncor, CenterPoint CNP -2.2%, American Electric Power (AEP) North, and American Electric Power (AEP) Central. 

The other 25% of the survey population live in areas with regulated markets, where a single company is responsible for both delivering the electricity to homes and businesses and serves as the only source from which electricity is purchased. Municipal-owned and operated utilities (e.g., Austin Energy, Bryan Texas Utilities, Burnet Electric Department, Denton Municipal Electric, New Braunfels Utilities, San Antonio’s CPS Energy CMS -2.1%) serve 73% of the regulated market. Electric cooperatives (e.g., Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative, Central Texas Electric Cooperative, Guadalupe Valley Cooperative, Lamb County Electric Cooperative, Pedernales Electricity Cooperative, Wood County Electric Cooperative) serve one-fifth of this market (21%), with private companies accounting for 6% of the regulated market.

The overall distribution of the survey population by electric utility providers is: Oncor (38%), CenterPoint (21%), municipal-owned utilities (18%), AEP Central & AEP North combined (12%), electric cooperatives (6%), other providers in the deregulated market (4%) and other providers in the regulated market (1%). 

There were no noteworthy differences among the 31% of Texans who did not lose power during the winter storm in regard to their evaluations of their local electricity provider or their belief that the power cuts in their locale were carried out in an equitable manner.  

However, among the 69% of Texans who lost power, those served by electric cooperatives in the regulated market and those served by private electric utilities in the deregulated market differed notably regarding their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, both in regard to their management of the rolling blackouts, amid debates over market reforms to avoid blackouts, and to their overall performance during the winter storm. Those Texans who lost power and are served by electric cooperatives in a regulated market had a significantly more positive evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility than did those Texans who lost power and are served by a private company in a deregulated electricity market. 

For example, only 24% of Texans served by electric cooperatives had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s overall performance during the winter storm, compared to 55%, 56% and 61% of those served by AEP, Oncor and CenterPoint respectively. A slightly smaller proportion of Texans served by electric cooperatives (22%) had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s performance managing the rolling blackouts during the winter storm, compared to 58%, 61% and 71% of Texans served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint, respectively.

Texans served by electric cooperatives in regulated markets were more likely to agree that the power cuts in their local area were carried out in an equitable manner compared to Texans served by commercial electricity utilities in deregulated markets. More than half (52%) of those served by an electric cooperative agreed that power cuts during the winter storm in their area were carried out in an equitable manner, compared to only 26%, 23% and 23% of those served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint respectively

The survey data did not allow us to provide a conclusive explanation as to why the performance during the winter storm by electric cooperatives (and to a much lesser extent municipal utilities) in the regulated markets was viewed more favorably by their customers than was the performance of the private companies in the deregulated markets viewed by their customers. Yet here are three, far from exhaustive, possible explanations.

First, electric cooperatives might have performed better (based on objective empirical metrics) during the winter storm, perhaps because they are more committed to their customers, who are effectively their bosses. .  

Second, members of electric cooperatives may believe their electric utility prioritizes their interests more than do customers of commercial electric utilities and therefore, even if equal empirical performance were the case, are more likely to rate their electric utility in a positive manner than are customers of commercial utilities.  

Third, regulated electric utilities where a single entity is responsible for the commercialization, transmission and distribution of electricity might be better able to respond to the type of challenges presented by the February 2021 winter storm than are deregulated electric utilities where one entity is responsible for commercialization and another is responsible for transmission and distribution, aligning with calls to improve electricity reliability across Texas.

Other explanations for these findings may exist, which in addition to the three posited above, await future empirical verification via new and more comprehensive studies designed specifically to study electric cooperatives, large commercial utilities, and the incentives that these entities face under the regulatory system governing production, commercialization and distribution of electricity, including rulings that some plants are exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under state law. 

Still, opinion about electricity providers during Winter Storm Uri is clear: Texans served by regulated electricity markets, especially by electric cooperatives, were much more satisfied with their providers’ performance than were those in deregulated markets. Throughout its history, Texas has staunchly supported the free market. Could Winter Storm Uri change this propensity, or will attempts to regulate electricity lessen as the memories of the storm’s havoc fades? With a hotter summer predicted to be on the horizon in 2021 and growing awareness of severe heat blackout risks, we may soon get an answer.   

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Rural Electrification Poverty Impact examines energy access, grid connections, and reliability, testing economic development claims via randomized trials; findings show minimal gains without appliances, reliable supply, and complementary services like education and job creation initiatives.

Key Points

Study of household grid connections showing modest poverty impact without reliable power and appliances.

✅ Randomized grid connections showed no short-term income gains.

✅ Low reliability and few appliances limited electricity use.

✅ Complementary investments in jobs, education, health may be needed.

The head of Swedfund, the development finance group, recently summarized a widely-held belief: “Access to reliable electricity drives development and is essential for job creation, women’s empowerment and combating poverty.” This view has been the driving force behind a number of efforts to provide electricity to the 1.1 billion people around the world living in energy poverty, such as India's village electrification initiatives in recent years.

But does electricity really help lift households out of poverty? My co-authors and I set out to answer this question. We designed an experiment in which we first identified a sample of “under grid” households in Western Kenya—structures that were located close to but not connected to a grid. These households were then randomly divided into treatment and control groups. In the treatment group, we worked closely with the rural electrification agency to connect the households to the grid for free or at various discounts. In the control group, we made no changes. After eighteen months, we surveyed people from both groups and collected data on an assortment of outcomes, including whether they were employed outside of subsistence agriculture (the most common type of work in the region) and how many assets they owned. We even gave children basic tests, as a frequent assertion is that electricity helps children perform better in school since they are able to study at night.

When we analyzed the data, we found no differences between the treatment and control groups. The rural electrification agency had spent more than $1,000 to connect each household. Yet eighteen months later, the households we connected seemed to be no better off. Even the children’s test scores were more or less the same. The results of our experiment were discouraging, and at odds with the popular view that supplying households with access to electricity will drive economic development. Lifting people out of poverty may require a more comprehensive approach to ensure that electricity is not only affordable (with some evidence that EV growth can benefit all customers in mature markets), but is also reliable, useable, and available to the whole community, paired with other important investments.

For instance, in many low-income countries, the grid has frequent blackouts and maintenance problems, making electricity unreliable, as seen in Nigeria's electricity crisis in recent years. Even if the grid were reliable, poor households may not be able to afford the appliances that would allow for more than just lighting and cell phone charging. In our data, households barely bought any appliances and they used just 3 kilowatt-hours per month. Compare that to the U.S. average of 900 kilowatt-hours per month, a figure that could rise as EV adoption increases electricity demand over time.

There are also other factors to consider. After all, correlation does not equal causation. There is no doubt that the 1.1 billion people without power are the world’s poorest citizens. But this is not the only challenge they face. The poor may also lack running water, basic sanitation, consistent food supplies, quality education, sufficient health care, political influence, and a host of other factors that may be harder to measure but are no less important to well-being. Prioritizing investments in some of these other factors may lead to higher immediate returns. Previous work by one of my co-authors, for example, shows substantial economic gains from government spending on treatment for intestinal worms in children.

It’s possible that our results don’t generalize. They certainly don’t apply to enhancing electricity services for non-residential customers, like factories, hospitals, and schools, and electric utilities adapting to new load patterns. Perhaps the households we studied in Western Kenya are particularly poor (although measures of well-being suggest they are comparable to rural households across Sub-Saharan Africa) or politically disenfranchised. Perhaps if we had waited longer, or if we had electrified an entire region, the household impacts we measured would have been much greater. But others who have studied this question have found similar results. One study, also conducted in Western Kenya, found that subsidizing solar lamps helped families save on kerosene, but did not lead children to study more. Another study found that installing solar-powered microgrids in Indian villages resulted in no socioeconomic benefits.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Electrification Potential Study for Canada evaluates NRCan's decarbonization roadmap, assessing electrification of end uses and replacements for fossil fuels across transportation, buildings, and industry, including propane, diesel, natural gas, and coal, to guide energy policy.

Key Points

An NRCan study assessing electrification to replace fossil fuels across sectors and guide deep decarbonization R&D.

✅ Evaluates non-electric alternatives alongside electrification paths

✅ Covers propane, diesel, natural gas, and coal end uses

✅ Guides NRCan R&D priorities for deep decarbonization

The federal government wants to spend up to $300,000 on a study aimed at understanding whether existing electrical technologies can “reduce or eliminate” fossil fuels used for virtually every purpose other than generating electricity.

The proposal has caused consternation within the Saskatchewan government, whose premier has criticized a 2035 net-zero grid target as shifting the goalposts, and which has spent months attacking federal policies it believes will harm the Western Canadian energy sector without meaningfully addressing climate change.

Procurement documents indicate the “Electrification Potential Study for Canada” will provide “strategic guidance on the need to pursue both electric and non-electric energy research and development to enable deep decarbonisation scenarios.”

“It is critical that (Natural Resources Canada) as a whole have a cross-sectoral, consistent, and comprehensive understanding of the viability of electric technologies as a replacement for fossil fuels,” the documents state.

The study proponent will be asked to examine possible replacements for a range of fuels, including propane, transportation fuel, fuel oil, diesel, natural gas and coal, even as Alberta maps a path to clean electricity for its grid. Only international travel fuel and electricity generation are outside the scope of the study.

“To be clear, the consultant should not answer these questions directly, but should conduct the analysis with them in mind. The goal … is to collate data which can be used by (Natural Resources Canada) to conduct analysis related to these questions,” the documents state.

Natural Resources Canada issued the request for proposals one week before Prime Minister Justin Trudeau officially launched a 40-day election campaign in which climate and energy policy, including debates over Alberta's power market like a Calgary retailer's challenge, is expected to play a defining role.

It also comes as the federal government works to complete the controversial Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion project through British Columbia, amid tariff threats boosting support for Canadian energy projects, which it bought last year for $4.5 billion and is currently bogged down in the court system.

A Natural Resources Canada spokeswoman said the ministry would not be able to respond to questions until sometime on Thursday.

While the documents make clear that the study aims to answer unresolved questions about what the International Energy Agency calls an increasingly-electric future, with clean grid and storage trends emerging, without a specific timeline, the provincial government is far from thrilled.

Energy and Resources Minister Bronwyn Eyre said the document reflects the federal government’s “hostility” to the energy sector, even as Alberta's electricity sector faces profound change, because government ministries like Natural Resources Canada don’t do anything without political direction.

Asked whether a responsible government should consider every option before taking a decision, Eyre said a government that was not interested in eliminating fossil fuels entirely would not have used such “strong” language in a public document, noting that provinces like Ontario are grappling with hydro system problems as well.

“I think it’s a real wake-up call to what (Ottawa’s) endgame really is here,” she said, adding that the document does not ask the proponent to conduct an economic impact analysis or consider potential job losses in the energy sector.

The study is organized by Natural Resources Canada’s office of energy research and development, which is tasked with accelerating energy technology “in order to produce and use energy in … more clean and efficient ways,” the documents state.

Bidding on the proposal closes Oct. 14, one week before the federal election. The successful proponent must deliver a final report in April 2020, according to the documents.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Saskatchewan COVID-19 economic impact: real-time data shows drops in electricity demand, oil well licensing, traffic and tickets, plus spikes in internet usage, government site visits, remote work, and alcohol wholesale volumes.

Key Points

COVID-19 reduced energy use, drilling and traffic, while pushing activity online; jobs, rents and sales show strain.

✅ Electricity demand down 6.7%; residential usage up

✅ Oil well license applications fell 15-fold in April

✅ Internet traffic up 16%-46%; wireless LTE up 34%

We’re only just beginning to grasp how COVID-19 has upended Saskatchewan’s economy, its government and all of our lives.

The numbers that usually make headlines — job losses, economic contraction, bankruptcies — are still well behind the pace of the virus and its toll.

But other numbers change more quickly. Saskatchewan people are using less power, and the power industry is adopting on-site staffing plans to ensure reliability as conditions evolve. We’re racking up fewer speeding tickets. And as new restrictions come, we’re clicking onto Saskatchewan.ca as much as 10,000 times per minute.

Here’s some data that provides a first glimpse into how much our province has changed in just six weeks.

Electricity use tends to rise and fall in tandem with the health of the economy, and the most recent data from SaskPower suggests businesses are powering down, while regional utilities such as Manitoba Hydro seek unpaid days off to trim costs.

Peak load requirements between March 15 and April 26 were 220 MW lower than during the same period in 2019, and elsewhere BC Hydro is posting COVID-19 updates at Site C as it manages project impacts. That’s a decrease of 6.7 per cent, with total load on April 29 at 2,551 MW. A megawatt is enough electricity to power about 1,000 homes.

Separate from pandemic impacts, an external investigation at Manitoba Hydro has drawn attention to workplace conduct issues.

But it’s not homes that are turning off the lights. SaskPower spokesman Joel Cherry said commercial and industrial usage is down, while residential demand is up, with household electricity bills rising as more people stay home.

The timing of power demand has also shifted, a pattern seen as residential electricity use rises during work-from-home routines. Peak load would usually come around 8 or 9 p.m. in April. Now it’s coming earlier, typically between 5 and 6 p.m.

Oil well applications fall 15-fold
Oil prices have cratered since late February, and producers in Saskatchewan have reacted by pulling back on drilling plans, while neighbouring Alberta provides transition support for coal workers amid broader energy shifts.

Applications for well licences fell from 242 in January to 203 in February (including nine potash and one helium operations), before dropping to 84 in March. April, the month benchmark oil prices went negative for one day, producers submitted just 15 applications.

That’s 15 times fewer than the 231 applications the Ministry of Energy and Resources received in April 2019.

Well licences are needed for drilling, operating, injecting, producing or exploring an oil and gas or potash well in the province.

There has been no clear trend in well abandonment, however. There were 176 applications for abandonment in March and 155 in April, roughly in line with figures from the year before.

SGI spokesman Tyler McMurchy believes the lower numbers might stem from a combination of lower traffic volumes during part of the month, possibly combined with a shift in police priorities. The March 2020 numbers are also well below January and February figures.

Indeed, the Ministry of Highways and infrastructure reported a 16 per cent decrease in average daily traffic last month compared to March 2019, through its traffic counts at 11 different spots on highways across the province.

In Regina, traffic counts at 16 locations dropped from a high of 2.1 million in the first week of March to a low of 1.3 million during the week of March 22. That’s a 44 per cent decrease.

Counts have gradually recovered to 1.6 million in the weeks since. The data was fairly consistent at all 16 spots, which are largely major intersections, though the city cautioned they may not be representative of Regina as a whole.

Tickets for cellphone use while driving also fell, dropping from 562 in February to 314 in March. McMurchy noted that distracted driving numbers in general have been falling since November as stiffer penalties were announced. Impaired driving tickets were up, by contrast, but still within a typical range.

Internet traffic shoots up 16 per cent, far more for rural high speed
You may be spending a lot more time on Netflix and Facebook in the age of social distancing, and SaskTel has noticed.

From late February to late April, SaskTel has seen “very significant increases in provincial data traffic.” DSL and fibre optic networks have handled a 16 per cent increase in traffic, while demand on the wireless LTE network is up 34 per cent.

Usage on the Fusion network up 46 per cent. That network serves rural areas that don’t have access to other high-speed options.

The specific reference dates for comparison were February 24 and April 27.

“We attribute these changes in data usage to the pandemic and not expected seasonal or yearly shifts in usage patterns,” said spokesman Greg Jacobs.

Saskatchewan.ca was attracting just 70 page views per minute on average in February. But page views jumped over 10,000 per minute at 2:38 p.m. on March 18, as Moe was still announcing the new measures.

That’s a 14,000 per cent increase.

For all of March, visitor sessions on the site clocked in at 3,905,061, almost four times the 944,904 recorded for February.

Bureaucracy has increasingly migrated to cyberspace, with 62 per cent of civil servants now working from home. Government Skype calls, both audio and video, have tripled from 12,000 sessions per day to 35,000.Telephone conference calls increased by a factor of 14 from the first week of February to the second full week of April, with 25 times more weekly call participants. 

The Ministry of Central Services reported a 17 per cent jump in emails received by government over the past two months, excluding the Ministry of Health.

But as civil servants spend more time on their computers, the government’s fleet is spending a lot less time on the road. The ministry has purchased 40 per cent fewer litres of fuel for its vehicles over the past four weeks, compared to the same time last year.

Alcohol wholesale volumes up 22 per cent, then fall back to normal
Retailers bought more alcohol from the Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority (SLGA) last month, just as the government began tightening pandemic restrictions.

Wholesale sales volumes were up 22 per cent over March 15 to 28, compared to the same period in 2019. SLGA spokesman David Morris said the additional demand “was likely the result of retailers stocking-up as restrictions related to COVID-19 took effect.”

But the jump didn’t last. Wholesale volumes were back to normal for the first two weeks of April. SLGA did notice a very slight uptick last week, however, with volumes out of its distribution centre up three per cent. The numbers do not include Brewer’s Distributors Ltd.

It’s unclear how much more alcohol consumers actually purchased, since province-wide retail numbers were not available.

There was no discernible trend in March for anti-anxiety medication, however. The number of prescriptions filled for benzodiazepines like Valium, Xanax and Ativan see-sawed over March, according to data provided by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, but its associate registrar does not believe the trends are statistically relevant.

One-fifth of tenants miss April rent
About 20 per cent of residential rent went totally unpaid in the first six days of April, according to the Saskatchewan Landlord Association (SLA).

The precise number is 19.7 per cent, but there’s some uncertainty due to the survey method, which is based on responses from 300 residential landlords with 14,000 units. An additional 12 per cent of tenants paid a portion of their rent, but not the full amount. The figures do not include social housing.

Cameron Choquette, the association’s executive officer, partly blames the province’s decision to suspend most landlord tenant board hearings for evictions, saying it “allows more people to take advantage of landlords by not paying their rent and not facing any consequences.”

The government has defended the suspension by saying it’s needed to ensure everyone has a safe place to self-isolate if needed during the pandemic.

March’s jobs numbers were bad, with almost 21,000 fewer Saskatchewan people employed compared to February.

April’s labour force survey is expected on Friday. But new April numbers released Wednesday show that two-thirds of the province’s businesses managed to avoid laying off staff almost entirely.

According to Statistics Canada, 66.2 per cent of businesses reported laying off between zero and one per cent of their employees due to COVID-19. That was better than any other province. Just 7.6 per cent laid off all of their employees, again the best number outside the territories. The survey period was April 3 to 24.

Some businesses are even hiring. Walmart, for instance, has hired 300 people in Saskatchewan since mid-March.

Trade and Export Development Minister Jeremy Harrison chalked the data up to a relatively more optimistic business outlook in Saskatchewan, combined with “very targeted” restrictions and a support program for small and medium businesses.

That support program, which provides $5,000 grants to qualifying businesses affected by government restrictions, has only been around for three weeks. But it’s already been bombarded with 6,317 applications.

The total value of those applications would be $24,178,000, according to Harrison. Of them, 3,586 have been approved with a value of $11,755,000.

Businesses are coming to Harrison’s ministry with thousands of questions. Since it opened in March, the Business Response Team has received 4,125 calls and 1,758 emails.

The kinds of questions have changed over the course of the pandemic. Many are now asking when they can open their doors, according to Harrison, as they wonder about “grey areas” in the Re-Open Saskatchewan plan.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

Trump Offshore Wind Pledge signals a push for deregulation over renewable energy, challenging climate policy, green jobs, and coastal development while citing marine ecosystems, navigation, and energy independence amid state-federal permitting and legal hurdles.

Key Points

Trump's vow to cancel offshore wind projects favors deregulation and fossil fuels, impacting climate policy and jobs.

✅ Day-one plan to scrap offshore wind leases and permits

✅ Risks to renewable targets, grid mix, and coastal supply chains

✅ Likely court fights and state-federal regulatory conflicts

During his tenure as President of the United States, Donald Trump made numerous promises and policy proposals, many of which sparked controversy and debate. One such pledge was his vow to scrap offshore wind projects on "day one" of his presidency. This bold statement, while appealing to certain interests, raised concerns about its potential impact on U.S. offshore wind growth and environmental conservation efforts.

Trump's opposition to offshore wind projects stemmed from various factors, including his skepticism towards renewable energy, even as forecasts point to a $1 trillion offshore wind market in coming years, concerns about aesthetics and property values, and his focus on promoting traditional energy sources like coal and oil. Throughout his presidency, Trump prioritized deregulation and sought to roll back environmental policies introduced by previous administrations, arguing that they stifled economic growth and hindered American energy independence.

The prospect of scrapping offshore wind projects drew mixed reactions from different stakeholders. Supporters of Trump's proposal pointed to potential benefits such as preserving scenic coastal landscapes, protecting marine ecosystems, and addressing concerns about navigational safety and national security. Critics, however, raised valid concerns about the implications of such a decision on the renewable energy sector, including progress toward getting 1 GW on the grid nationwide, climate change mitigation efforts, and job creation in the burgeoning green economy.

Offshore wind energy has emerged as a promising source of clean, renewable power with the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and diversify the energy mix. Countries like Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Germany have made significant investments in offshore wind in Europe, demonstrating its viability as a sustainable energy solution. In the United States, offshore wind projects have gained traction in states like Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey, where coastal conditions are conducive to wind energy generation.

Trump's pledge to scrap offshore wind projects on "day one" of his presidency raised questions about the feasibility and legality of such a move. While the president has authority over certain aspects of energy policy and regulatory oversight, the development of offshore wind projects often involves multiple stakeholders, including state governments, local communities, private developers, and federal agencies, and actions such as Interior's move on Vineyard Wind illustrate federal leverage in permitting. Any attempt to halt or reverse ongoing projects would likely face legal challenges and regulatory hurdles, potentially delaying or derailing implementation.

Moreover, Trump's stance on offshore wind projects reflected broader debates about the future of energy policy, environmental protection, and economic development. While some argued for prioritizing fossil fuel extraction and traditional energy infrastructure, others advocated for a transition towards clean, renewable energy sources, drawing on lessons from the U.K. about wind deployment, to mitigate climate change and promote sustainable development. The Biden administration, which succeeded the Trump presidency, has signaled a shift towards a more climate-conscious agenda, including support for renewable energy initiatives and commitments to rejoin international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord.

In hindsight, Trump's pledge to scrap offshore wind projects on "day one" of his presidency underscores the complexities of energy policy and the importance of balancing competing interests and priorities. While concerns about aesthetics, property values, and environmental impact are valid, addressing the urgent challenge of climate change requires bold action and innovation in the energy sector. Offshore wind energy presents an opportunity, as seen in the country's biggest offshore wind farm approved in New York, to harness the power of nature in a way that is both environmentally responsible and economically beneficial. As the United States navigates its energy future, finding common ground and forging partnerships will be essential to ensure a sustainable and prosperous tomorrow.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

EU Electricity Market Reform Opposition highlights nine states resisting an overhaul of the wholesale power market amid gas price spikes, urging energy efficiency, interconnection targets, and EU caution rather than redesigns affecting renewables.

Key Points

Nine EU states reject overhauling wholesale power pricing, favoring efficiency and prudent policy over redesigns.

✅ Nine states oppose redesign of wholesale power market.

✅ Call for efficiency and 15% interconnection by 2030.

✅ Ministers to debate responses amid gas-driven price spikes.

Germany, Denmark, Ireland and six other European countries said on Monday they would not support a reform of the EU electricity market, ahead of an emergency meeting of energy ministers to discuss emergency measures and the recent price spike.

European gas and power prices soared to record high levels in autumn and have remained high, prompting countries including Spain and France to urge Brussels to redesign its electricity market rules.

Nine countries on Monday poured cold water on those proposals, in a joint statement that said they "cannot support any measure that conflicts with the internal gas and electricity market" such as an overhaul of the wholesale power market altogether.

"As the price spikes have global drivers, we should be very careful before interfering in the design of internal energy markets," the statement said.

"This will not be a remedy to mitigate the current rising energy prices linked to fossil fuels markets across Europe."

Austria, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Latvia and the Netherlands signed the statement, which called instead for more measures to save energy and a target for a 15% interconnection of the EU electricity market by 2030.

European energy ministers meet tomorrow to discuss their response to the price spike, including gas price cap strategies under consideration. Most countries are using tax cuts, subsidies and other national measures to shield consumers against the impact higher gas prices are having on energy bills, but EU governments are struggling to agree on a longer term response.

Spain has led calls for a revamp of the wholesale power market in response to the price spike, amid tensions between France and Germany over reform, arguing that the system is not supporting the EU's green transition.

Under the current system, the wholesale electricity price is set by the last power plant needed to meet overall demand for power. Gas plants often set the price in this system, which Spain said was unfair as it results in cheap renewable energy being sold for the same price as costlier fossil fuel-based power.

The European Commission has said it will investigate whether the EU power market is functioning well, but that there is no evidence to suggest a different system would have better protected countries against the surge in energy costs, and that rolling back electricity prices is tougher than it appears during such spikes.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News