Gazprom wants to sell power to British

World Bank Energy Policy debates financing for coal, oil, gas, and renewables to fight energy poverty, expand grid reliability, ensure baseload power, and balance climate goals with development finance for affordable, reliable electricity access.

Key Points

It outlines the bank's stance on financing fossil fuels and renewables to expand affordable, reliable electricity.

✅ Focus on energy access, baseload reliability, and poverty alleviation

✅ Debate over coal, gas, and renewables in development finance

✅ Geopolitics: China and Russia fill funding gaps, raising risks

Why isn’t the World Bank using all available energy resources in its global efforts to fight poverty? That’s the question I’ve asked World Bank President David Malpass. Nearly two years ago, the multilateral development bank decided to stop supporting critical coal, oil and gas projects that help people in developing countries escape poverty.

Along with 11 other senators, and as a member who votes on whether to give U.S. taxpayer dollars to the World Bank, I am pressing the bank to lift these restrictions. Developing countries desperately need access to a steady supply of affordable, reliable clean electricity to support economic growth.

The World Bank has pulled funding for critical electricity projects in poor countries, including high-efficiency power stations that are fueled by coal, even as efforts to revitalize coal communities with clean energy have grown.

Despite Kosovo having the world’s fifth-largest reserves of coal, the bank announced it would only support new energy projects from renewable sources going forward. Kosovo’s Minister of Economic Development Valdrin Lluka responded: “We don’t have the luxury to do such experiments in a poor country such as Kosovo. … It is in our national security interest to secure base energy inside our country.”

The World Bank’s misguided move comes as 840 million people worldwide are living without electricity, including 70 percent of sub-Saharan Africa, and as the fall in global energy investment may lead to shortages.

Even more troubling, nearly 3 billion people in developing countries rely on fuels like wood and other biomass for cooking and home heating, resulting in serious health problems and premature deaths, and the pandemic saw widespread electricity shut-offs that deepened energy insecurity. In 2016, household smoke killed an estimated 2.6 million people.

The World Bank’s mission is to lift people out of poverty. The bank is now compromising that mission in favor of a political agenda targeting certain energy sources.

With the World Bank blocking financing to affordable and reliable energy projects, Russia and China are stepping up their investments in order to gain geopolitical leverage.

President Vladimir Putin is pursuing Russian oil and gas projects in Mozambique, Gabon, and Angola. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is supporting traditional energy resources, with 36 percent of its power projects from 2014 to 2017 involving coal. South Africa had to turn to the China Development Bank to fund its $1.5 billion coal-fired power plant.

There are real risks for countries partnering with China and Russia on these projects. Developing countries are facing what some are calling China’s “debt trap” diplomacy. These nations have also raised concerns over safety compliance, unfair business practices, and labor standards.

As the bank’s largest contributor, the United States has a duty to make sure U.S. taxpayer dollars are used wisely and effectively. Every U.S. dollar at the World Bank should make a difference for people in the developing world.

My colleagues and I have asked the bank to pursue an all-of-the-above energy strategy as it strives to achieve its mission to end extreme poverty and promote shared prosperity. We will take the bank’s response into account during the congressional appropriations process.

The United States is a top global energy producer. And yet Democrats running for president are pursuing anti-energy policies that would hurt not only the United States but the entire world, with implications for U.S. national security as well.

Utilizing our abundant energy resources has fueled an American energy renaissance and a booming U.S. economy, even as disruptions in coal and nuclear have strained the grid, with millions of new jobs and higher wages.

People who are struggling to survive and thrive in developing countries deserve the same opportunity to access affordable and reliable sources of power.

As Microsoft founder and global philanthropist Bill Gates has noted of renewables: "Many people experiencing energy poverty live in areas without access to the kind of grids that are needed to make those technologies cheap and reliable enough to replace fossil fuels."

Ultimately, there is a role for all sources of energy to help countries alleviate poverty and improve the education, health and wellbeing of their people.

The solution to ending energy poverty does not lie in limiting options, but in using all available options. The World Bank must recommit to ending extreme poverty by helping countries use all of the world’s abundant energy resources. Let’s end energy poverty now.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Net Zero Grid Investment will fuel electrification, renewable energy buildout, EV adoption, and grid modernization, boosting utilities, solar, and storage, while policy, IRA incentives, and transmission upgrades drive reliability and long-term rate base growth.

Key Points

Funding to electrify sectors and modernize the grid, scaling renewables, EVs, and storage to meet 2045 net zero goals.

✅ $370B over 22 years to meet 2045 net zero target

✅ Utilities lead gains via grid modernization and rate base growth

✅ EVs, solar, storage scale; IRA credits offset costs

$370 billion: That’s the investment Edison International CEO Pedro Pizarro says is needed for California’s power grid to meet the state’s “net zero” goal for CO2 emissions by 2045.

Getting there will require replacing fossil fuels with electricity in transportation, HVAC systems for buildings and industrial processes. Combined with population growth and data demand potentially augmented by artificial intelligence, that adds up to an 82 percent increase in electricity demand over 22 years, or 3 percent annually, and a potential looming shortage if buildout lags.

California’s plans also call for phasing out fossil fuel generation in the state, despite ongoing dependence on fossil power during peaks. And presumably, its last nuclear plant—PG&E Corp’s (PCG) Diablo Canyon—will be eventually be shuttered as well. So getting there also means trebling the state’s renewable energy generation and doubling usage of rooftop solar.

Assuming this investment is made, it’s relatively easy to put together a list of beneficiaries. Electric vehicles hit 20 percent market share in the state in Q2, even as pandemic-era demand shifts complicate load forecasting. And while competition from manufacturers has increased, leading manufacturers like Tesla TSLA -3% Inc (TSLA) can look forward to rising sales for some time—though that’s more than priced in for Elon Musk’s company at 65 times expected next 12 months earnings.

In the past year, California regulators have dialed back net metering through pricing changes affecting compensation, a subsidy previously paying rooftop solar owners premium prices for power sold back to the grid. That’s hit share prices of SunPower Corp (SPWR) and Sunrun Inc (RUN) quite hard, by further undermining business plans yet to demonstrate consistent profitability.

Nonetheless, these companies too can expect robust sales growth, as global prices for solar components drop and Inflation Reduction Act tax credits at least somewhat offset higher interest rates. And the combination of IRA tax credits and U.S. tariff walls will continue to boost sales at solar manufacturers like JinkoSolar Holding (JKS).

The surest, biggest beneficiaries of California’s drive to Net Zero are the utilities, reflecting broader utility trends in grid modernization, with investment increasing earnings and dividends. And as the state’s largest pure electric company, Edison has the clearest path.

Edison is currently requesting California regulators OK recovery over a 30-year period of $2.4 billion in losses related to 2017 wildfires. Assuming a amicable decision by early next year, management can then turn its attention to upgrading the grid. That investment is expected to generate long-term rate base growth of 8 percent at year, fueling 5 to 7 percent annual earnings growth through 2028 with commensurate dividend increases.

That’s a strong value proposition Edison stock, with trades at just 14 times expected next 12 months earnings. The yield of roughly 4.4 percent at current prices was increased 5.4 percent this year and is headed for a similar boost in December.

When California deregulated electricity in 1996, it required utilities with rare exceptions to divest their power generation. As a result, Edison’s growth opportunity is 100 percent upgrading its transmission and distribution grid. And its projects can typically be proposed, sited, permitted and built in less than a year, limiting risk of cost overruns to ensure regulatory approval and strong investment returns.

Edison’s investment plan is also pretty much immune to an unlikely backtracking on Net Zero goals by the state. And the company has a cost argument as well: Dr Pizarro cites U.S. Department of Energy and Department of Transportation data to project inflation-adjusted savings of 40 percent in California’s total customer energy bills from full electrification.

There’s even a reason to believe 40 percent savings will prove conservative. Mainly, gasoline currently accounts for a bit more than half energy expenditures. And after a more than 10-year global oil and gas investment drought, supplies are likely get tighter and prices possibly much higher in coming years.

Of course, those savings will only show up after significant investment is made. At this point, no major utility system in the world runs on 100 percent renewable energy, and California’s blackout politics underscore how reliability concerns shape deployment. And the magnitude of storage technology needed to overcome intermittency in solar and wind generation is not currently available let alone affordable, though both cost and efficiency are advancing.

Taking EVs from 20 to 100 percent of California’s new vehicle sales calls for a similar leap in efficiency and cost, even with generous federal and state subsidy. And while technology to fully electrify buildings and homes is there, economically retrofitting statewide is almost certainly going to be a slog.

At the end of the day, political will is likely to be as important as future technological advance for how much of Pizarro’s $370 billion actually gets spent. And the same will be true across the U.S., with state governments and regulators still by and large calling the shots for how electricity gets generated, transmitted and distributed—as well as who pays for it and how much, even as California’s exported policies influence Western markets.

Ironically, the one state where investors don’t need to worry about renewable energy’s prospects is one of the currently reddest politically. That’s Florida, where NextEra Energy NEE +2.8% (NEE) and other utilities can dramatically cut costs to customers and boost reliability by deploying solar and energy storage.

You won’t hear management asserting it can run the Sunshine State on 100 percent renewable energy, as utilities and regulators do in some of the bluer parts of the country. But by demonstrating the cost and reliability argument for solar deployment, NextEra is also making the case why its stock is America’s highest percentage bet on renewables’ growth—particularly at a time when all things energy are unfortunately becoming increasingly, intensely political.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Africa Energy Access Funding faces disbursement bottlenecks as SDG 7 goals demand investment in decentralized solar, minigrids, and rural electrification; COVID-19 pressures donors, requiring faster approvals, standardized documentation, and stronger project preparation and due diligence.

Key Points

Financing to expand Africa's electrification, advancing SDG 7 via disbursement to decentralized solar and minigrids.

✅ Accelerates investment for SDG 7 and rural electrification

✅ Prioritizes decentralized solar, minigrids, and utilities

✅ Speeds approvals, standard docs, and project preparation

The time frame from final funding approval to disbursement can be the most painful part of any financing process, and the access-to-electricity sector is not spared.

Amid the global spread of the coronavirus over the last few weeks, there have been several funding pledges to promote access to electricity in Africa. In March, the African Development Bank and other partners committed $160 million for the Facility for Energy Inclusion to boost electricity connectivity in Africa through small-scale solar systems and minigrids. Similarly, the Export-Import Bank of the United States allocated $91.5 million for rural electrification in Senegal.

Rockefeller chief wants to redefine 'energy poverty'

Rajiv Shah, president of The Rockefeller Foundation, believes that SDG 7 on energy access lacks ambition. He hopes to drive an effort to redefine it.

Currently, funding is not being adequately deployed to help achieve universal access to energy. The International Energy Agency’s “Africa Energy Outlook 2019” report estimated that an almost fourfold increase in current annual access-to-electricity investments — approximately $120 billion a year over the next 20 years — is required to provide universal access to electricity for the 530 million people in Africa that still lack it.

While decentralized renewable energy across communities, particularly solar, has been instrumental in serving the hardest-to-reach populations, tracking done by Sustainable Energy for All — in the 20 countries with about 80% of those living without access to sustainable energy — suggests that decentralized solar received only 1.2% of the total electricity funding.

The spread of COVID-19 is contributing significantly to Africa’s electricity challenges across the region, creating a surge in the demand for energy from the very important health facilities, an exponential increase in daytime demand as a result of most people staying and working indoors, and a rise from some food processing companies that have scaled up their business operations to help safeguard food security, among others. Thankfully — and rightly so — access-to-electricity providers are increasingly being recognized as “essential service” providers amid the lockdowns across cities.

To start tackling Africa’s electricity challenges more effectively, “funding-ready” energy providers must be able to access and fulfill the required conditions to draw down on the already pledged funding. What qualifies as “funding readiness” is open to argument, but having a clear, commercially viable business and revenue model that is suitable for the target market is imperative.

Developing the skills required to navigate the due-diligence process and put together relevant project documents is critical and sometimes challenging for companies without prior experience. Typically, the final form of all project-related agreements is a prerequisite for the final funding approval.

In addition, having the right internal structures in place — for example, controls to prevent revenue leakage, an experienced management team, a credible board of directors, and meeting relevant regulatory requirements such as obtaining permits and licenses — are also important indicators of funding readiness.

1. Support for project preparation. Programs — such as the Private Financing Advisory Network and GET.invest’s COVID-19 window — that provide business coaching to energy project developers are key to helping surmount these hurdles and to increasing the chances of these projects securing funding or investment. Donor funding and technical-assistance facilities should target such programs.

2. Project development funds. Equity for project development is crucial but difficult to attract. Special funds to meet this need are essential, such as the $760,000 for the development of small-scale renewable energy projects across sub-Saharan Africa recently approved by the African Development Bank-managed Sustainable Energy Fund for Africa.

3. Standardized investment documentation. Even when funding-ready energy project developers have secured investors, delays in fulfilling the typical preconditions to draw down funds have been a major concern. This is a good time for investors to strengthen their technical assistance by supporting the standardization of approval documents and funding agreements across the energy sector to fast-track the disbursement of funds.

4. Bundled investment approvals and more frequent approval sessions. While we implement mechanisms to hasten the drawdown of already pledged funding, there is no better time to accelerate decision-making for new access-to-electricity funding to ensure we are better prepared to weather the next storm. Donors and investors should review their processes to be more flexible and allow for more frequent meetings of investment committees and boards to approve transactions. Transaction reviews and approvals can also be conducted for bundled projects to reduce transaction costs.

5. Strengthened local capacity. African countries must also commit to strengthening the local manufacturing and technical capacity for access-to-electricity components through fiscal incentives such as extended tax holidays, value-added-tax exemptions, accelerated capital allowances, and increased investment allowances.

The ongoing pandemic and resulting impacts due to lack of electricity have further shown the need to increase the pace of implementation of access-to-electricity projects. We know that some of the required capital exists, and much more is needed to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 7 — about access to affordable and clean energy for all — by 2030.

It is time to accelerate our support for access-to-electricity companies and equip them to draw down on pledged funding, while calling on donors and investors to speed up their funding processes to ensure the electricity gets to those most in need.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

BC Hydro SAP Oversight Report assesses B.C. Utilities Commission findings on misleading testimony, governance failures, public funds oversight, IT project risk, compliance gaps, audit controls, ratepayer impacts, and regulatory accountability in major enterprise software decisions.

Key Points

A summary of BCUC findings on BC Hydro's SAP IT project oversight, governance lapses, and regulatory compliance.

✅ BCUC probed testimony, cost overruns, and governance failures

✅ Project split to avoid scrutiny; incomplete records and late corrections

✅ Reforms pledged: stronger business cases, compliance, audit controls

B.C. Hydro misled the province’s independent regulator about an expensive technology program, thereby avoiding scrutiny on how it spent millions of dollars in public money, according to a report by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

The Crown power corporation gave inaccurate testimony to regulators about the software it had chosen, called SAP, for an information technology project that has cost $197 million, said the report.

“The way the SAP decision was made prevented its appropriate scrutiny by B.C. Hydro’s board of directors and the BCUC, reflecting governance risks seen in Manitoba Hydro board changes in other jurisdictions,” the commission found.

“B.C. Hydro’s CEO and CFO and its (audit and risk management board committee) members did not exhibit good business judgment when reviewing and approving the SAP decision without an expenditure approval or business case, highlighting how board upheaval at Hydro One can carry market consequences.”

The report was the result of a complaint made in 2016 by then-opposition NDP MLA Adrian Dix, who alleged B.C. Hydro lied to the regulatory commission to try to get approval for a risky IT project in 2008 that then went over budget and resulted in the firing of Hydro’s chief information officer.

The commission spent two years investigating. Its report outlined how B.C. Hydro split the IT project into smaller components to avoid scrutiny, failed to produce the proper planning document when asked, didn’t disclose cost increases of up to $38 million, reflecting pressures seen at Manitoba Hydro's debt across the sector, gave incomplete testimony and did not quickly correct the record when it realized the mistakes.

“Essentially all of the things I asserted were substantiated, and so I’m pleased,” Dix, who is now minister of health, said on Monday. “I think ratepayers can be pleased with it, because even though it was an elaborate process, it involves hundreds of millions of spending by a public utility and it clearly required oversight.”

The BCUC stopped short of agreeing with Dix’s allegation that the errors were deliberate. Instead it pointed toward a culture at B.C. Hydro of confusion, misunderstanding and fear of dealing with the independent regulatory process.

“Therefore, the panel finds that there was a culture of reticence to inform the BCUC when there was doubt about something, even among individuals that understood or should have understood the role of the BCUC, a pattern that can fuel Hydro One investor concerns in comparable markets,” read the report.

“Because of this doubt and uncertainty among B.C. Hydro staff, the panel finds no evidence to support a finding that the BCUC was intentionally misled. The panel finds B.C. Hydro’s culture of reticence to be inappropriate.”

By law, B.C. Hydro is supposed to get approval by the commission for rate changes and major expenditures. Its officials are often put under oath when providing information.

B.C. Hydro apologized for its conduct in 2016. The Crown corporation said Monday it supports the commission’s findings and has made improvements to management of IT projects, including more rigorous business case analyses.

“We participated fully in the commission’s process and acknowledged throughout the inquiry that we could have performed better during the regulatory hearings in 2008,” said spokesperson Tanya Fish.

“Since then, we have taken steps to ensure we meet the highest standards of openness and transparency during regulatory proceedings, including implementing a (thorough) awareness program to support staff in providing transparent and accurate testimony at all times during a regulatory process.”

The Ministry of Energy, which is responsible for B.C. Hydro, said in a statement it accepts all of the BCUC recommendations and will include the findings as part of a review it is conducting into Hydro’s operations and finances, including its deferred operating costs for context, and regulatory oversight.

Dix, who is now grappling with complex IT project management in his Health Ministry, said the lessons learned by B.C. Hydro and outlined in the report are important.

“I think the report is useful reading on all those scores,” he said. “It’s a case study in what shouldn’t happen in a major IT project.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

CO2 Tax for UK Offshore Energy Efficiency can accelerate adoption of aero-derivative gas turbines, flare gas recovery, and combined cycle power, reducing emissions on platforms like Equinor's Mariner and supporting net zero goals.

Key Points

A carbon price pushing operators to adopt efficient turbines, flare recovery, and combined cycle to cut emissions.

✅ Aero-derivative turbines beat industrial units on efficiency

✅ Flare gas recovery cuts routine flaring and fuel waste

✅ Combined cycle raises efficiency and lowers emissions

By Tom Baxter

The recent Energy Voice article from the Equinor chairman concerning the Mariner project heralding a ‘significant point of reference’ for growth highlighted the energy efficiency achievements associated with the platform.

I view energy efficiency as a key enabler to net zero, and alongside this the UK must start large-scale storage to meet system needs; it is a topic I have been involved with for many years.

As part of my energy efficiency work, I investigated Norwegian practices and compared them with the UK.

There were many differences, here are three;

1. Power for offshore installations is usually supplied from gas turbines burning fuel from the oil and gas processing plant, and even as the UK's offshore wind supply accelerates, installations convert that to electricity or couple the gas turbine to a machine such as a gas compressor.

There are two main generic types of gas turbine – aero-derivative and industrial. As the name implies aero-derivatives are aviation engines used in a static environment. Aero-derivative turbines are designed to be energy efficient as that is very import for the aviation industry.

Not so with industrial type gas turbines; they are typically 5-10% less efficient than a comparable aero-derivative.

Industrial machines do have some advantages – they can be cheaper, require less frequent maintenance, they have a wide fuel composition tolerance and they can be procured within a shorter time frame.

My comparison showed that aero-derivative machines prevailed in Norway because of the energy efficiency advantages – not the case in the UK where there are many more offshore industrial gas turbines.

Tom Baxter is visiting professor of chemical engineering at Strathclyde University and a retired technical director at Genesis Oil and Gas Consultants

2. Offshore gas flaring is probably the most obvious source of inefficient use of energy with consequent greenhouse gas emissions.

On UK installations gas is always flared due to the design of the oil and gas processing plant.

Though not a large quantity of gas, a continuous flow of gas is routinely sent to flare from some of the process plant.

In addition the flare requires pilot flames to be maintained burning at all times and, while Europe explores electricity storage in gas pipes, a purge of hydrocarbon gas is introduced into the pipes to prevent unsafe air ingress that could lead to an explosive mixture.

On many Norwegian installations the flare system is designed differently. Flare gas recovery systems are deployed which results in no flaring during continuous operations.

Flare gas recovery systems improve energy efficiency but they are costly and add additional operational complexity.

3. Returning to gas turbines, all UK offshore gas turbines are open cycle – gas is burned to produce energy and the very hot exhaust gases are vented to the atmosphere. Around 60 -70% of the energy is lost in the exhaust gases.

Some UK fields use this hot gas as a heat source for some of the oil and gas treatment operations hence improving energy efficiency.

There is another option for gas turbines that will significantly improve energy efficiency – combined cycle, and in parallel plans for nuclear power under the green industrial revolution aim to decarbonise supply.

Here the exhaust gases from an open cycle machine are taken to a separate turbine. This additional turbine utilises exhaust heat to produce steam with the steam used to drive a second turbine to generate supplementary electricity. It is the system used in most UK power stations, even as UK low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 across the grid.

Open cycle gas turbines are around 30 – 40% efficient whereas combined cycle turbines are typically 50 – 60%. Clearly deploying a combined cycle will result in a huge greenhouse gas saving.

I have worked on the development of many UK oil and gas fields and combined cycle has rarely been considered.

The reason being is that, despite the clear energy saving, they are too costly and complex to justify deploying offshore.

However that is not the case in Norway where combined cycle is used on Oseberg, Snorre and Eldfisk.

What makes the improved Norwegian energy efficiency practices different from the UK – the answer is clear; the Norwegian CO2 tax.

A tax that makes CO2 a significant part of offshore operating costs.

The consequence being that deploying energy efficient technology is much easier to justify in Norway when compared to the UK.

Do we need a CO2 tax in the UK to meet net zero – I am convinced we do. I am in good company. BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Total are supporting a carbon tax.

Not without justification there has been much criticism of Labour’s recent oil tax plans, alongside proposals for state-owned electricity generation that aim to reshape the power market.

To my mind Labour’s laudable aims to tackle the Climate Emergency would be much better served by supporting a CO2 tax that complements the UK's coal-free energy record by strengthening renewable investment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BPA Privatization would sell the Bonneville Power Administration's transmission lines, raising FERC-regulated grid rates for ratepayers, impacting hydropower and the California-Oregon Intertie under the Trump 2018 budget proposal in the Pacific Northwest region.

Key Points

Selling Bonneville's transmission grid to private owners, raising rates and returns, shifting costs to ratepayers.

✅ Trump 2018 budget targets BPA transmission assets for sale.

✅ Higher capital costs, taxes, and profit would raise transmission rates.

✅ California-Oregon Intertie and hydropower flows face price impacts.

President Trump's 2018 budget proposal is so chock-full of noxious elements — replacing food stamps with "food boxes," drastically cutting Medicaid and Medicare, for a start — that it's unsurprising that one of its most misguided pieces has slipped under the radar.

That's the proposal to privatize the government-owned Bonneville Power Administration, which owns about three-quarters of the high-voltage electric transmission lines in a region that includes California, Washington state and Oregon, serving more than 13.5 million customers. By one authoritative estimate, any such sale would drive up the cost of transmission by 26%-44%.

The $5.2-billon price cited by the Trump administration, moreover, is nearly 20% below the actual value of the Bonneville grid — meaning that a private buyer would pocket an immediate windfall of $1.2 billion, at the expense of federal taxpayers and Bonneville customers.

Trump's plan for Portland, Ore.-based Bonneville is part of a larger proposal to sell off other government-owned electricity bodies, including the Colorado-based Western Area Power Administration and the Oklahoma-based Southwestern Power Administration. But Bonneville is by far the largest of the three, accounting for nearly 90% of the total $5.8 billion the budget anticipates collecting from the sales. The proposal is also part of the administration's

Both plans are said to be politically dead-on-arrival in Washington. But they offer a window into the thinking in the Trump White House.

"The word 'muddle' comes to mind," says Robert McCullough, a respected Portland energy consultant, referring to the justification for the privatization sale included in the Trump budget.

The White House suggests that selling the Bonneville grid would result in lower costs. But that narrative, McCullough wrote in a blistering assessment of the proposal, "displays a severe lack of understanding about the process of setting transmission rates."

McCullough's assessment is an update of a similar analysis he performed when the privatization scheme was first raised by the Trump administration last year. In that analysis issued in June, McCullough said the proposal "raises the question of why these valuable assets would be sold at a discount — and who would get the benefit of the discounted price."

The implications of a sale could be dire for Californians. Bonneville is the majority owner of the California-Oregon Intertie, an electrical transmission system that carries power, including Columbia River-generated hydropower and other clean-energy generation in British Columbia that supports the regional exchange, south to California in the summer and excess California generation to the Pacific Northwest in the winter.

But the idea has drawn fire throughout the region. When it was first broached last year, the Public Power Council, an association of utilities in the Northwest, assailed it as an apparent "transfer of value from the people of the Northwest to the U.S. Treasury," drawing parallels to Manitoba Hydro governance issues elsewhere.

The region's political leaders had especially harsh words for the idea this time around. "Oregonians raised hell last year when Trump tried to raise power bills for Pacific Northwesterners by selling off Bonneville Power, and yet his administration is back at it again," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said after the idea reappeared. "Our investment shouldn't be put up for sale to free up money for runaway military spending or tax cuts for billionaires." Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) promised in a statement to work to "stop this bad idea in its tracks."

The notion of privatizing Bonneville predates the Trump administration; it was raised by Bill Clinton and again by George W. Bush, who thought the public would gain if the administration could sell its power at market rates. Both initiatives failed.

The same free-enterprise ideology underlies the Trump proposal. Privatizing the transmission lines "encourages a more efficient allocation of economic resources and mitigates unnecessary risk to taxpayers," the budget asserts. "Ownership of transmission assets is best carried out by the private sector where there are appropriate market and regulatory incentives."

But that's based on a misunderstanding of how transmission rates are set, McCullough says. Transmission is essentially a monopoly enterprise, with rates overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission based on the grid's costs, and with federal scrutiny of public utilities such as the TVA underscoring that oversight. There's very little in the way of market "incentives" involved in transmission, since no one has come forward to build a competing grid.

Those include the owners' cost of capital — which would be much higher for a private owner than a government agency, McCullough observes, as Hydro One investor uncertainty demonstrates in practice. A private owner, unlike the government-owned Bonneville, also would owe federal income taxes, which would be passed on to consumers.

Then there's the profit motive. Bonneville "currently sells and delivers its power at cost," McCullough wrote last year. "Under a private regime, an investor-owned utility would likely charge a higher rate of return, a pattern seen when UK network profits drew regulatory rebukes."

None of these considerations appears to have been factored into the White House budget proposal. "Either there's an unsophisticated person at the Office of Management and Budget thinking up these numbers himself," McCullough told me, "or there would seem to be ongoing negotiations with an unidentified third party." No such buyer has emerged in the past, however.

What's left is a blind faith in the magic of the market, compounded by ignorance about how the transmission market operates. Put it together, and there's reason to wonder if Trump is even serious about this plan.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News