Coal's future not in Carolinas

Australia Clean Energy Target drives renewables in the National Electricity Market, with RepuTex modelling and the Finkel Review showing lower wholesale prices and emissions as gas generators set prices less often under ambitious targets.

Key Points

Policy boosting low emissions generation to cut electricity emissions and lower wholesale prices across Australia.

✅ Ambitious targets lower wholesale prices through added generation

✅ RepuTex modelling shows renewables displace costly gas peakers

✅ Finkel Review suggests CET cuts emissions and boosts reliability

The more ambitious a clean energy target is, the lower Australian wholesale electricity prices will be, according to new modelling by energy analysis firm RepuTex.

The Finkel review, released last month recommended the government introduce a clean energy target (CET), which it found would cut emissions from the national electricity market and put downward pressure on both wholesale and retail prices, aligning with calls to favor consumers over generators in market design.

The Finkel review only modelled a CET that would cut emissions from the electricity sector by 28% below 2005 levels by 2030. But all available analysis has demonstrated that such a cut would not be enough to meet Australia’s overall emissions reductions made as part of the Paris agreement, which themselves were too weak to help meet the central aim of that agreement – to keep global warming to “well below 2C”.

RepuTex modelled the effect of a CET that cut emissions from the electricity sector by 28% – like that modelled in the Finkel Review – as well as one it said was consistent with 2C of global warming, which would cut emissions from electricity by 45% below 2005 levels by 2030.

It found both scenarios caused wholesale prices to drop significantly compared to doing nothing, despite IEA warnings on falling energy investment that could lead to shortages, with the more ambitious scenario resulting in lower wholesale prices between 2025 and 2030.

In the “business as usual scenario”, RepuTex found wholesale prices would hover roughly around the current price of $100 per MWh.

Under a CET that reduced electricity emissions by 28%, prices would drop to under $40 around 2023, and then rise to nearly $60 by 2030.

The more ambitious CET had a broadly similar effect on wholesale prices. But RepuTex found it would drive prices down a little slower, but then keep them down for longer, stabilising at about $40 to $50 for most of the 2020s.

It found a CET would drive prices down by incentivising more generation into the market. The more ambitious CET would further suppress prices by introducing more renewable energy, resulting in expensive gas generators less often being able to set the price of electricity in the wholesale market, a dynamic seen with UK natural gas price pressures recently.

The downward pressure of a CET on wholesale prices was more dramatic in the RepuTex report than in Finkel’s own modelling. But that was largely because, as Alan Finkel himself acknowledged, the estimates of the costs of renewable energy in the Finkel review modelling were conservative.

Speaking at the National Press Club, Finkel said: “We were conservative in our estimates of wind and large-scale solar generator prices. Indeed, in recent months the prices for wind generation have already come in lower than what we modelled.”

The RepuTex modelling also found the economics of the national electricity market no longer supported traditional baseload generation – such as coal power plants that were unable to respond flexibly to demand, with debates over power market overhauls in Alberta underscoring similar tensions – and so they would not be built without the government distorting the market.

“With a premium placed on flexible generation that can ramp up or down, baseload only generation – irrespective of how clean or dirty it is – is likely to be too inflexible to compete in Australia’s future electricity system,” the report said.

“In this context, renewable energy remains attractive to the market given it is able to deliver energy reliability, with no emissions, at low cost prices, with clean grid and battery trends in Canada informing the shift for policymakers. This affirms that renewables are a lay down misere to out-compete traditionally fossil-fuel sources in Australia for the foreseeable future.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One-Avista acquisition sparks Idaho regulatory scrutiny over foreign ownership, utility merger impacts, rate credits, and public interest, as FERC and FCC approvals advance and consumers question governance, service reliability, and long-term rate stability.

Key Points

A cross-border utility merger proposal with Idaho oversight, weighing foreign ownership, rates, and reliability.

✅ Idaho PUC review centers on public interest and rate impacts.

✅ FERC and FCC approvals granted; state decisions pending.

✅ Avista to retain name and Spokane HQ post-transaction.

“Please don’t sell us to Canada.” That refrain, or versions of it, is on full display at the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, which admittedly isn’t everyone’s go-to entertainment site. But it is vitally important for this reason: the first big test of the expansionist dreams of the politically tempest-tossed Hydro One, facing political risk as it navigates markets, rests with its successful acquisition of Avista Corp., provider of electric generation, transmission and distribution to retail customers spread from Oregon to Washington to Montana and Idaho and up into Alaska.

The proposed deal — announced last summer, but not yet consummated — marks the first time the publicly traded Hydro One has embarked upon the acquisition of a U.S. utility. And if Idahoans spread from Boise to Coeur d’Alene to Hayden are any indication, they are not at all happy with the idea of foreign ownership. Here’s Lisa McCumber, resident of Hayden: “I am stating my objection to this outrageous merger/takeover. Hydro One charges excessive fees to the people it provides for, this is a monopoly beyond even what we are used to. I, in no way, support or as a customer, agree with the merger of this multi-billion-dollar, foreign, company.”

#google#

Or here’s Debra Bentley from Coeur d’Alene: “Fewer things have more control over a nation than its power source. In an age where we are desperately trying to bring American companies back home and ‘Buy American’ is somewhat of a battle cry, how is it even possible that it would or could be allowed for this vital necessity … to be controlled by a foreign entity?”

Or here’s Spencer Hutchings from Sagle: “This is an incredibly bad idea.”

There are legion of similar emails from concerned consumers, and the Maine transmission line debate offers a parallel in public opposition.

The rationale for the deal? Last fall Hydro One CEO Mayo Schmidt testified before the Idaho commission, which regulates all gas, water and electricity providers in the state. “Hydro One is a pure-play transmission and distribution utility located solely within Ontario,” Schmidt told commissioners. “It seeks diversification both in terms of jurisdictions and service areas. The proposed Transaction with Avista achieves both goals by expanding Hydro One into the U.S. Pacific Northwest and expanding its operations to natural gas distribution and electric generation. The proposed Transaction with Avista will deliver the increased scale and benefits that come from being a larger player in the utility industry.”

Translation: now that it is a publicly traded entity, Hydro needs to demonstrate a growth curve to the investment community. The value to you and me? Arguable. This is a transaction framed as a benefit to shareholders, one that won’t cause harm to customers. Premier Kathleen Wynne is feeling the pain of selling off control of an essential asset. In his testimony to the commission, Schmidt noted that the Avista acquisition would take the province’s Hydro ownership to under 45 per cent. (The Electricity Act technically prevents the sale of shares that would take the government’s ownership position below 40 per cent, though acquisitions appear to allow further dilution. )

Stratospheric compensation, bench-marked against other chief executives who enjoy similarly outsized rewards, is part of this game. I have written about Schmidt’s unconscionable compensation before, but that was when he was making a relatively modest $4 million. Relative, that is, to his $6.2 million in 2017 compensation ($3.5 million of that is in the form of share based awards).

Should the acquisition of Avista be approved, amendments to the CIC, or change in control agreements, for certain named Avista executive officers will allow them to voluntarily terminate their employment without “good reason.” That includes Scott Morris, the company’s CEO, who will exit with severance of $6.9 million (U.S.) and additional benefits taking the total to a potential $15.7 million.

Back to the deal: cost savings over time could be achieved, Schmidt continued in his testimony, though he was unable to quantify those. The integration between the two companies, he promised, will be “seamless.” Retail customers in Idaho, Washington and Oregon would benefit from proposed “Rate Credits” equalling an estimated $15.8 million across five years, even as Hydro One seeks to redesign its bills in Ontario. Idahoans would see a one per cent rate decrease through that period.

While Avista would become a wholly owned Hydro subsidiary, it would retain its name, and its headquarters in Spokane, Wash. In the case of Idaho specifically, a proposed settlement in April, subject to final approval by the commission, stipulates agreements on everything from staffing to governance to community contributions.

Will that meet the test? It’s up to the commission to determine whether the proposed transaction will keep a lid on rates and is “consistent with the public interest.” Hydro One is hoping for a decision from regulatory agencies in all the named states by mid-August and a closing date by the end of September, though U.S. regulators can ultimately determine the fate of such deals. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted its approval in January, followed last week by the Federal Communications Commission. Washington and Alaska have reached settlement agreements. These too are pending final state approvals.

The $5.3-billion deal (or $6.7 billion Canadian) is subject to ongoing hearings in Idaho, and elsewhere rate hikes face opposition as hearings begin. Members of the public are encouraged to have their say. The public comment deadline is June 27.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Western Lithium Supply Localization is accelerating as EV battery makers diversify from China, boosting lithium hydroxide sourcing in North America and Europe, amid Covid-19 disruptions and rising prices, with geothermal brines and local processing.

Key Points

An industry shift to source lithium and processing near EV hubs, reducing China reliance and supply chain risk.

✅ EV makers seek North American and European lithium hydroxide

✅ Prices rise amid Covid-19 and logistics constraints

✅ New extraction: geothermal and oilfield brine projects

The global outbreak of coronavirus will accelerate efforts by western carmakers to localise supplies of lithium for electric car batteries, according to US producer Livent.

The industry was keen to diversify away from China, which produces the bulk of the world’s lithium, a critical material for lithium-ion batteries, said Paul Graves, Livent’s chief executive.

“It’s a conversation that’s starting to happen that was not happening even six months ago,” especially in the US, the former Goldman Sachs banker added.

China produced about 79 per cent of the lithium hydroxide used in electric car batteries last year, according to consultancy CRU, a supply chain that has been disrupted by the virus outbreak and EV shortages in some markets.

Prices for lithium hydroxide rose 3.1 per cent last month, their first increase since May 2018, according to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, due to the impact of the Covid-19 bug.

Chinese lithium producer Ganfeng Lithium, which supplies major carmakers from Tesla to Volkswagen, said it had raised prices by less than 10 per cent, due to higher production costs and logistical difficulties.

“We can get lithium from lots of places . . . is that really something we’re prepared to rely upon?” Mr Graves said. “People are going to relook at supply chains, including battery recycling initiatives that enhance resilience, and relook at their integrity . . . and they’re going to say is there something we need to do to change our supply chains to make them more shockproof?”

General Motors last week said it was looking to source battery minerals such as lithium and nickel from North America for its new range of electric cars that will use cells made in Ohio by South Korea’s LG Chem.

“Some of these critical minerals could be challenging to obtain; it’s not just cobalt you need to be concerned about but also battery-grade nickel and lithium as well,” said Andy Oury, a lead engineer for batteries at GM. “We’re doing all of this with an eye to sourcing as much of the raw material from North America as possible.”

However, George Heppel, an analyst at CRU, warned it would be difficult to compete with China on costs. “China is always going to be the most competitive place to buy battery raw materials. That’s not likely to change anytime soon,” he said.

Livent, which extracts lithium from brines in northern Argentina, is looking at extracting the mineral from geothermal resources in the US and also wants to build a processing plant in Europe.

The Philadelphia-based company is also working with Canadian start-up E3 Metals to extract lithium from brines in Alberta's oil and gasfields for new projects in Canada.

“We’ll look at doing more in the US and more in Europe,” said Mr Graves, underscoring evolving Canada-U.S. collaboration across EV supply chains.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

UK EV Per-Mile Taxes are reshaping road pricing and vehicle taxation for electric cars, raising fairness concerns, climate policy questions, and funding needs for infrastructure and charging networks across the country.

Key Points

They are per-mile road charges on EVs to fund infrastructure, raising fairness, emissions, and vehicle taxation concerns.

✅ Propose tax relief or credits for EV owners

✅ Consider emission-based road user charging

✅ Invest in charging networks and road infrastructure

As the UK continues its push towards a greener future with increased adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) and surging EV interest during supply disruptions, a growing number of electric car drivers are voicing their frustration over the current tax system. The debate centers around the per-mile vehicle taxes that are being proposed and implemented, which many argue are unfairly burdensome on EV owners. This issue has sparked a broader campaign advocating for a more equitable approach to vehicle taxation, one that reflects the evolving landscape of transportation and environmental policy.

Rising Costs for Electric Car Owners

Electric vehicles have been hailed as a crucial component in the UK’s strategy to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change. Government incentives, such as grants for EV purchases and tax breaks, have been instrumental in encouraging the shift from petrol and diesel cars to cleaner alternatives, even as affordability concerns persist among many UK consumers. However, as the number of electric vehicles on the road grows, the financial dynamics of vehicle taxation are coming under scrutiny.

One of the key issues is the introduction and increase of per-mile vehicle taxes. While these taxes are designed to account for road usage and infrastructure costs, they have been met with resistance from EV drivers who argue that they are being disproportionately affected. Unlike traditional combustion engine vehicles, electric cars typically have lower running costs compared to petrol or diesel models and, in many cases, benefit from lower or zero emissions. Yet, the current tax system does not always reflect these advantages.

The Taxation Debate

The crux of the debate lies in how vehicle taxes are structured and implemented. Per-mile taxes are intended to ensure that all road users contribute fairly to the maintenance of transport infrastructure. However, the implementation of such taxes has raised concerns about fairness and affordability, particularly for those who have invested heavily in electric vehicles.

Critics argue that per-mile taxes do not adequately take into account the environmental benefits of driving an electric car, noting that the net impact depends on the electricity generation mix in each market. While EV owners are contributing to a cleaner environment by reducing emissions, they are also facing higher taxes that could undermine the financial benefits of their greener choice. This has led to calls for a reassessment of the tax system to ensure that it aligns with the UK’s climate goals and provides a fair deal for electric vehicle drivers.

Campaigns for Fairer Taxation

In response to these concerns, several advocacy groups and individual EV owners have launched campaigns calling for a more balanced approach to vehicle taxation. These campaigns emphasize the need for a system that supports the transition to electric vehicles and recognizes their role in reducing environmental impact, drawing on ambitious EV targets abroad as useful benchmarks.

Key proposals from these campaigns include:

1. Tax Relief for EV Owners: Advocates suggest providing targeted tax relief for electric vehicle owners to offset the costs of per-mile taxes. This could include subsidies or tax credits that acknowledge the environmental benefits of EVs and help to make up for higher road usage fees.

2. Emission-Based Taxation: An alternative approach is to design vehicle taxes based on emissions rather than mileage. This system would ensure that those driving high-emission vehicles contribute more to road maintenance, while EV owners, who are already reducing emissions, are not penalized.

3. Infrastructure Investments: Campaigners also call for increased investments in infrastructure that supports electric vehicles, such as charging networks and proper grid management practices that balance load. This would help to address concerns about the adequacy of current road maintenance and support the growing number of EVs on the road.

Government Response and Future Directions

The UK government faces the challenge of balancing revenue needs with environmental goals. While there is recognition of the need to update the tax system in light of increasing EV adoption, there is also a focus on ensuring that any changes are equitable and do not disincentivize the shift towards cleaner vehicles, while considering whether the UK grid can handle additional EV demand reliably.

Discussions are ongoing about how to best implement changes that address the concerns of electric vehicle owners while ensuring that the transportation infrastructure remains adequately funded. The outcome of these discussions will be critical in shaping the future of vehicle taxation in the UK and supporting the country’s broader environmental objectives.

Conclusion

As electric vehicle adoption continues to rise in the UK, the debate over vehicle taxation becomes increasingly important. The campaign for fairer per-mile taxes highlights the need for a tax system that supports the transition to cleaner transportation while also being fair to those who have made environmentally conscious choices. Balancing these factors will be key to achieving the UK’s climate goals and ensuring that all road users contribute equitably to the maintenance of transport infrastructure. The ongoing dialogue and policy adjustments will play a crucial role in shaping a sustainable and just future for transportation in the UK.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Israel Electricity Reform Competition opens the supply segment to private suppliers, challenges IEC price controls, and promises consumer choice, marginal discounts, and market liberalization amid natural gas generation and infrastructure remaining with IEC.

Key Points

Policy opening 40% of supply to private vendors, enabling consumer choice and small discounts while IEC retains the grid.

✅ 40% of retail supply opened to private electricity suppliers

✅ IEC keeps meters, lines; tariffs still regulated by the authority

✅ Expected discounts near 7%, not dramatic price cuts initially

"See the pseudo-reform in the electricity sector: no lower prices, no opening the market to competition, and no choice of electricity suppliers, with a high rate for consumers despite natural gas." This is an advertisement by the Private Power Producers Forum that is appearing everywhere: Facebook, the Internet, billboards, and the press.

Is it possible that the biggest reform in the economy with a cost estimated by Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) (TASE: ELEC.B22) at NIS 7 billion is really a pseudo-reform? In contrast to the assertions by the private electricity producers, who are supposedly worried about our wallets and want to bring down the cost of electricity for us, the reform will open a segment of electricity supply to competition, as agreed in the final discussions about the reform. No less than 40% of this segment will be removed from IEC's exclusive responsibility and pass to private hands.

This means that in the not-too-distant future, one million households in Israel will be able to choose between different electricity suppliers. IEC will retain the infrastructure, with its meter and power lines, but for the first time, the supplier who sends the monthly bill to our home can be a private concern.

Up until now, the only regulatory agency determining the electricity rate in Israel was the Public Utilities Authority (electricity), i.e. the state. Now, in the framework of the reform, as a result of opening the supply segment to competition, private electricity producers will be able to offer a lower rate than IEC's, with mechanisms like electricity auctions shown to cut costs in some markets, while IEC's rate will still be controlled by the Public Utilities Authority (electricity).

This situation differs from the situation in almost all European countries, where the electricity market is fully open to competition and the EU is pursuing an electricity market revamp to address pricing challenges, with no electricity price controls and free switching by consumers between electricity producers, just as in the mobile phone market. This measure has not lowered electricity prices in Europe, where rates are higher than in Israel, which is in the bottom third of OECD countries in its electricity rate.

Regardless of reports, supply will be opened to competition and we will be able to choose between electricity suppliers in the future. Are the private electricity producers nevertheless right when they say that the electricity sector will not be opened to "real competition"?

What is obviously necessary is for the private producers to offer a substantially lower rate than IEC in order to attract as many new customers as possible and win their trust. Can the private producers offer a significantly lower rate than IEC? The answer is no, at least not in the near future. The teams handling the negotiations are aware of this. "The private supplier's price will not be significantly cheaper than IEC's controlled price; there will be marginal discounts," a senior government source explains. "What is involved here is another electricity intermediary, so it will not contribute to competition and lowering the price," he added.

There are already private electricity producers supplying electricity to large business customers - factories, shopping malls, and so forth - at a 7% discount. The rest of the electricity that they produce is sold to the system manager. When supply is opened to competition, it can be assumed that the private suppliers will also be able to offer a similar discount to private consumers.

Will a 7% discount cause a home consumer to leave reliable and familiar IEC for a private producer, given evidence from retail electricity competition in other markets? This is hard to know.

#google#

Why cannot private electricity producers offer a larger discount that will really break the monopoly, as their advertisement says they want to do? Chen Herzog, chief economist and partner at BDO Consulting, which is advising the Private Power Producers Forum, says, "Competition in supply requires the construction of competitive power plants that can compete and offer cheaper electricity.

"The power plants that IEC will sell in the reform, which will go on selling electricity to IEC, are outmoded, inefficient, and non-competitive. In addition, the producer will have to continue employing IEC workers in the purchased plants for at least five years. The producer will generate electricity in IEC power stations with IEC employees and additional overhead of a private producer, with factors such as cost allocation further shaping end-user rates. This amounts to being an IEC subcontractor in production. There is no saving on costs, so there will be no surplus to deduct from the consumer price," he adds.

The idea of opening supply to electricity market competition on such a large scale sounds promising, but saving on electricity for consumers still looks a long way off.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

UK Energy Security Bill drives private investment, diversifies from fossil fuels with hydrogen and offshore wind, strengthens an independent system operator, and extends the retail price cap to shield consumers from volatile gas markets.

Key Points

A UK plan to reform energy, cut fossil fuel reliance, boost hydrogen and wind, and extend the retail price cap.

✅ Targets £100bn private investment and 480,000 jobs by 2030.

✅ Creates an independent system operator for grid planning.

✅ Extends retail energy price cap; mitigates volatile gas costs.

The British government said that plans to bolster the country's energy security, diversify away from fossil fuels amid the Europe energy crisis and protect consumers from spiralling prices are set to become law.

Britain's energy security bill will be introduced to Parliament on Wednesday and includes 26 measures to reform the energy system, including ending the gas-electricity price link, and reduce its dependency on fossil fuels and exposure to volatile gas prices.

Global energy prices have skyrocketed this year, and UK natural gas and electricity have risen sharply, particularly after Russia's invasion of Ukraine which has led to many European countries trying to reduce reliance on Russian pipeline gas and seek cheaper alternatives.

The bill will help drive 100 billion pounds ($119 billion) of private sector investment by 2030 into industries to diversify Britain's energy supply, including hydrogen and offshore wind, which could help lower costs as a 16% decrease in bills in April is anticipated, and create around 480,000 jobs by the end of the decade, the government said.

"We’re going to slash red tape, get investment into the UK, and grab as much global market share as possible in new technologies to make this plan a reality," Business and Energy Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, amid high winter energy costs, said in a statement.

The bill will establish a new independent system operator to coordinate and plan Britain's energy system, while MPs move to restrict prices for gas and electricity through oversight.

It will also enable the extension of a cap on retail energy prices beyond 2023, with the price cap cost under scrutiny, which limits the amount suppliers can charge for each unit of gas and electricity.

The bill will also enable the secretary of state to prevent potential disruptions to the downstream oil sector due to industrial action or malicious protests, the government added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News