Fire touches off power outage across Florida

Germany energy liquidity crisis is straining municipal utilities as gas and power prices surge, margin calls rise, and Russian supply cuts bite, forcing state support, interventions, and emergency financing to stabilize households and businesses.

Key Points

A cash squeeze on German municipal utilities as soaring gas and power prices trigger margin calls and funding gaps.

✅ Margin calls and spot-market purchases strain cash flow

✅ State liquidity lines and EU collateral support proposed

✅ Gazprom cuts, Uniper distress heighten default risks

Germany’s fears that soaring power prices and gas prices could trigger a deeper crisis is starting to get real. 

Several hundred local utilities are coming under strain and need support, according to the head of Germany’s largest energy lobby group. The companies, generally owned by municipalities, supply households and small businesses directly and are a key part of the country’s power and gas network.

“The next step from the government and federal states must be to secure liquidity for these municipal companies,” Kerstin Andreae, chairwoman of the German Association of Energy and Water Industries, told Bloomberg in Berlin. “Prices are rising, and they have no more money to pay the suppliers. This is a big problem.”

Germany’s energy crunch intensified over the weekend after Russia’s Gazprom PJSC halted its key gas pipeline indefinitely, a stark wake-up call for policymakers to reduce fossil fuel dependence. European energy prices have surged again amid concerns over shortages this winter and fears of a worst-case energy scenario across the bloc. 

Many utilities are running into financial issues as they’re forced to cover missing Russian deliveries with expensive supplies on the spot market. German energy giant Uniper SE, which supplies local utilities, warned it will likely burn through a 7 billion-euro ($7 billion) government safety net and will need more help already this month.

Some German local utilities have already sought help, according to a government official, who asked not to be identified in line with briefing rules.  

With Europe’s largest economy already bracing for recession, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s administration is battling on several fronts, testing the government’s financial capacity. The ruling coalition agreed Sunday on a relief plan worth about 65 billion euros -- part of an emerging energy shield package to contain the fallout of surging costs for households and businesses. 

Starting in October, local utilities will have to pay a levy for the gas acquired, which will further increase their financial burden, Andreae said.

Margin Calls
European gas prices are more than four times higher than usual for this time of year, underscoring why rolling back electricity prices is tougher than it appears for policymakers, as Russia cuts supplies in retaliation for sanctions related to its invasion of Ukraine. When prices peak, energy companies have to pay margin calls, extra collateral required to back their trades.

Read more: Energy Trade Risks Collapsing Over Margin Calls of $1.5 Trillion

The problem has hit local utilities in other countries as well. In Austria, the government approved a 2 billion-euro loan for Vienna’s municipal utility last month. 

The European Union is also planning help, floating gas price cap strategies among other tools. The bloc’s emergency measures will include support for electricity producers struggling to find enough cash to guarantee trades, according to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

The situation has worsened in Germany as some of the country’s big gas importers are reluctant to sell more supplies to some of municipal companies amid fears they could default on payments, Andreae said. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hornsea One Offshore Wind Farm delivers first power to the UK grid, scaling renewable energy with 1.2GW capacity, giant offshore turbines, and Yorkshire coast infrastructure to replace delayed nuclear and cut fossil fuel emissions.

Key Points

Hornsea One Offshore Wind Farm is a 1.2GW UK project delivering offshore renewable power to about 1 million homes.

✅ 174 turbines over 407 km2; Siemens Gamesa supply chain in the UK

✅ 1.2GW capacity can power ~1m homes; phases scale with 10MW+ turbines

✅ Supports UK grid, replaces delayed nuclear, cuts fossil generation

An offshore windfarm on the Yorkshire coast that will dwarf the world’s largest when completed is to supply its first power to the UK electricity grid this week, mirroring advances in tidal electricity projects delivering to the grid as well.

The Danish developer Ørsted, which has installed the first of 174 turbines at Hornsea One, said it was ready to step up its plans and fill the gap left by failed nuclear power schemes.

The size of the project takes the burgeoning offshore wind power sector to a new scale, on a par with conventional fossil fuel-fired power stations.

Hornsea One will cover 407 square kilometres, five times the size of the nearby city of Hull. At 1.2GW of capacity it will power 1m homes, making it about twice as powerful as today’s biggest offshore windfarm once it is completed in the second half of this year.

“The ability to generate clean electricity offshore at this scale is a globally significant milestone at a time when urgent action needs to be taken to tackle climate change,” said Matthew Wright, UK managing director of Ørsted, the world’s biggest offshore windfarm builder.

The power station is only the first of four planned in the area, with a green light and subsidies already awarded to a second stage due for completion in the early 2020s, and interest from Japanese utilities underscoring growing investor appetite.

The first two phases will use 7MW turbines, which are taller than London’s Gherkin building.

But the latter stages of the Hornsea development could use even more powerful, 10MW-plus turbines. Bigger turbines will capture more of the energy from the wind and should lower costs by reducing the number of foundations and amount of cabling firms need to put into the water, with developers noting that offshore wind can compete with gas in the U.S. as costs fall.

Henrik Poulsen, Ørsted’s chief executive, said he was in close dialogue with major manufacturers to use the new generation of turbines, some of which are expected to approach the height of the Shard in London, the tallest building in the EU.

The UK has a great wind resource and shallow enough seabed to exploit it, and could even “power most of Europe if it [the UK] went to the extreme with offshore”, he said.

Offshore windfarms could help ministers fill the low carbon power gap created by Hitachi and Toshiba scrapping nuclear plants, the executive suggested. “If nuclear should play less of a role than expected, I believe offshore wind can step up,” he said.

New nuclear projects in Europe had been “dramatically delayed and over budget”, he added, in comparison to “the strong track record for delivering offshore [wind]”.

The UK and Germany installed 85% of new offshore wind power capacity in the EU last year, according to industry data, with wind leading power across several markets. The average power rating of the turbines is getting bigger too, up 15% in 2018.

The turbines for Hornsea One are built and shipped from Siemens Gamesa’s factory in Hull, part of a web of UK-based suppliers that has sprung up around the growing sector, such as Prysmian UK's land cables supporting grid connections.

Around half of the project’s transition pieces, the yellow part of the structure that connects the foundation to the tower, are made in Teeside. Many of the towers themselves are made by a firm in Campbeltown in the Scottish highlands. Altogether, about half of the components for the project are made in the UK.

Ørsted is not yet ready to bid for a share of a £60m pot of further offshore windfarm subsidies, to be auctioned by the government this summer, but expects the price to reach even more competitive levels than those seen in 2017.

Like other international energy companies, Ørsted has put in place contingency planning in event of a no-deal Brexit – but the hope is that will not come to pass. “We want a Brexit deal that will facilitate an orderly transition out of the union,” said Poulsen.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BC Hydro COVID-19 Relief offers electricity bill credits for laid-off workers and small business support, announced by Premier John Horgan, while FortisBC customers face deferrals and billing arrangements across Kelowna, Okanagan, and West Kootenay.

Key Points

BC Hydro COVID-19 Relief gives bill credits to laid-off residents; FortisBC offers deferrals and payment plans.

✅ Credit equals 3x average monthly bill for laid-off BC Hydro users

✅ Small businesses on BC Hydro get three months bill forgiveness

✅ FortisBC waives late fees, no disconnections, offers deferrals

On April 1, B.C. Premier John Horgan announced relief for BC Hydro customers who are facing bills after being laid-off during the economic shutdown due to the COVID-19 epidemic, while the utility also explores time-of-use rates to manage demand.

“Giving people relief on their power bills lets them focus on the essentials, while helping businesses and encouraging critical industry to keep operating,” he said.

BC Hydro residential customers in the province who have been laid off due to the pandemic will see a credit for three times their average monthly bill and, similar to Ontario's pandemic relief fund, small businesses forced to close will have power bills forgiven for three months.

But a large region of the province which gets its power from FortisBC will not have the same bail out.

FortisBC is the electricity provider to the tens of thousands who live and work in the Silmikameen Valley on Highway 3, the city of Kelowna, the Okanagan Valley south from Penticton, the Boundary region along the U.S. border. as well as West Kootenay communities.

“We want to make sure our customers are not worried about their FortisBC bill,” spokesperson Nicole Brown said.

FortisBC customers will still be on the hook for bills despite measures being taken to keep the lights on, even as winter disconnection pressures have been reported elsewhere.

Recent storm response by BC Hydro also highlights how crews have kept electricity service reliable during recent atypical events.

“We’ve adjusted our billing practices so we can do more,” she said. “We’ve discontinued our late fees for the time being and no customer will be disconnected for any financial reason.”

Brown said they will work one-on-one with customers to help find a billing arrangement that best suits their needs, aligning with disconnection moratoriums seen in other jurisdictions.

Those arrangement, she said, could include a “deferral, an equal payment plan or other billing options,” similar to FortisAlberta's precautions announced in Alberta.

Global News inquired with the Premier’s office why FortisBC customers were left out of Wednesday’s announcement and were deferred to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

The Ministry referred us back to FortisBC on the issue and offered no other comment, even as peak rates for self-isolating customers remained unchanged in parts of Ontario.

“We’re examining all options of how we can further help our customers and look forward to learning more about the program that BC Hydro is offering,” Brown said.

Disappointed FortisBC customers took to social media to vent about the disparity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Colorado Wildfire Power Shutoffs reduce ignition risk through PSPS, grid safety protocols, data-driven forecasts, and emergency coordination, protecting communities, natural resources, and infrastructure during extreme fire weather fueled by drought and climate change.

Key Points

Planned PSPS outages cut power in high-risk areas to prevent ignitions, protect residents, and boost wildfire resilience.

✅ PSPS triggered by forecasts, fuel moisture, and fire danger indices.

✅ Utilities coordinate alerts, timelines, and critical facility support.

✅ Paired with forest management, education, and rapid response.

Colorado, known for its stunning landscapes and outdoor recreation, has implemented proactive measures to reduce the risk of wildfires by strategically shutting off power in high-risk areas, similar to PG&E wildfire shutoffs implemented in California during extreme conditions. This approach, while disruptive, aims to safeguard communities, protect natural resources, and mitigate the devastating impacts of wildfires that have become increasingly prevalent in the region.

The decision to initiate power outages as a preventative measure against wildfires underscores Colorado's commitment to proactive fire management and public safety, aligning with utility disaster planning practices that strengthen grid readiness. With climate change contributing to hotter and drier conditions, the state faces heightened wildfire risks, necessitating innovative strategies to minimize ignition sources and limit fire spread.

Utility companies, in collaboration with state and local authorities, identify areas at high risk of wildfire based on factors such as weather forecasts, fuel moisture levels, and historical fire data. When conditions reach critical thresholds, planned power outages, also known as Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS), are implemented to reduce the likelihood of electrical equipment sparking wildfires during periods of extreme fire danger, particularly during windstorm-driven outages that elevate ignition risks.

While power outages are a necessary precautionary measure, they can pose challenges for residents, businesses, and essential services that rely on uninterrupted electricity, as seen when a North Seattle outage affected thousands last year. To mitigate disruptions, utility companies communicate outage schedules in advance, provide updates during outages, and coordinate with emergency services to ensure the safety and well-being of affected communities.

The implementation of PSPS is part of a broader strategy to enhance wildfire resilience in Colorado. In addition to reducing ignition risks from power lines, the state invests in forest management practices, wildfire prevention education, and emergency response capabilities, including continuity planning seen in the U.S. grid COVID-19 response, to prepare for and respond to wildfires effectively.

Furthermore, Colorado's approach to wildfire prevention highlights the importance of community preparedness and collaboration, and utilities across the region adopt measures like FortisAlberta precautions to sustain critical services during emergencies. Residents are encouraged to create defensible space around their properties, develop emergency evacuation plans, and stay informed about wildfire risks and response protocols. Community engagement plays a crucial role in building resilience and fostering a collective effort to protect lives, property, and natural habitats from wildfires.

The effectiveness of Colorado's proactive measures in mitigating wildfire risks relies on a balanced approach that considers both short-term safety measures and long-term fire prevention strategies. By integrating technology, data-driven decision-making, and community partnerships, the state aims to reduce the frequency and severity of wildfires while enhancing overall resilience to wildfire impacts.

Looking ahead, Colorado continues to refine its wildfire management practices in response to evolving environmental conditions and community needs, drawing on examples of localized readiness such as PG&E winter storm preparation to inform response planning. This includes ongoing investments in fire detection and monitoring systems, research into fire behavior and prevention strategies, and collaboration with neighboring states and federal agencies to coordinate wildfire response efforts.

In conclusion, Colorado's decision to implement power outages as a preventative measure against wildfires demonstrates proactive leadership in wildfire risk reduction and public safety. By prioritizing early intervention and community engagement, the state strives to safeguard vulnerable areas, minimize the impact of wildfires, and foster resilience in the face of increasing wildfire threats. As Colorado continues to innovate and adapt its wildfire management strategies, its efforts serve as a model for other regions grappling with the challenges posed by climate change and wildfire risks.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ofgem UK Electricity Interconnectors will channel subsea cables, linking Europe, enabling energy import/export, integrating offshore wind via multiple-purpose interconnectors, boosting grid stability, capacity, and investment under National Grid analysis to 2030 targets.

Key Points

Subsea links between the UK and Europe that trade power, integrate offshore wind, and reinforce grid capacity.

✅ Two new subsea interconnector bids open in 2025

✅ Pilot for multiple-purpose links to offshore wind clusters

✅ National Grid to assess optimal routes, capacity, and locations

Ofgem has opened bids to build two electricity interconnectors between the UK and continental Europe as part of the broader UK grid transformation now underway.

The energy regulator said this would “bring forward billions of pounds of investment” in the subsea cables, such as the Lake Erie Connector, which can import cheaper energy when needed and export surplus power from the UK when it is available.

Developers will be invited to submit bids to build the interconnectors next year. Ofgem will additionally run a pilot scheme for ‘multiple-purpose interconnectors’, which are used to link clusters of offshore wind farms and related innovations like an offshore vessel chargepoint to an interconnector.

This forms part of the UK Government drive to more than double capacity by 2030, and to manage rising electric-vehicle demand, as discussed in EV grid impacts, in support of its target of quadrupling offshore wind capacity by the same date.

Interconnectors provide some 7 per cent of UK electricity demand. The UK so far has seven electricity interconnectors linked to Ireland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Norway, while projects like the Ireland-France connection illustrate broader European grid integration.

Balfour Beatty won a £90m contract for onshore civil engineering works on the Viking Link Norway interconnector, which is due to come into operation in 2023, while London Gateway's all-electric berth highlights related port electrification.

It said that interconnector developers have in the past been allowed to propose their preferred design, connection location and sea route to the connecting country. Ofgem has now said it may decide to consider only those projects that meet its requirements based on an analysis of location and capacity needs by National Grid.

Ofgem has not specified that the new interconnectors must link to any specific place or country, but may do so later, as priorities like the Cyprus electricity highway illustrate emerging directions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News