Rural residents worry about impact of turbines

By Santa Fe New Mexican


Arc Flash Training CSA Z462 - Electrical Safety Essentials

Our customized live online or in‑person group training can be delivered to your staff at your location.

  • Live Online
  • 6 hours Instructor-led
  • Group Training Available
Regular Price:
$249
Coupon Price:
$199
Reserve Your Seat Today
Petite, gray-haired Sally Maestas remembers a time when this tiny rural village 50 miles east of Santa Fe along Interstate 25 didn't have electricity. "We used kerosene lanterns when I was growing up," said Maestas, 79.

She witnessed the coming of electric lines powered by coal. Now, on the mesa overlooking Bernal, a Chicago-based company wants to put up dozens of wind turbines, each more than 30 stories high from base to blade tip. The power will be shipped six miles away to a power line supplying cities across the West.

"The energy could be OK," Maestas said, "but I guess it's not (coming) here."

More turbines are in windy New Mexico's future, making many renewable energy advocates cheer. They note wind energy is far cleaner and almost as cheap as electricity from coal-fired power plants. Wind energy companies tout the revenue and jobs generated for cash-strapped rural counties.

But a battle is brewing over where wind energy facilities should be built in New Mexico, and the first battleground is in rural villages.

Retired plasterer Keely Meagan lives a few miles from Maestas on top of the mesa. If the wind turbines are placed there, she'll be able to see most of them from the solar-powered home she built. It's not their towering size that worries Meagan so much as the potential for other negative impacts if the turbines aren't sited properly. She's concerned New Mexico is joining a nationwide rush into wind energy without making sure communities are protected and without questioning whether large-scale wind farms are the best option for the future.

Until 1999, the only wind turbines in New Mexico were windmills pumping up water on isolated ranches. Now there are four major wind farms — located in the southeastern part of the state — with the capacity to power thousands of homes when the wind blows.

"Wind power is a clean, inexhaustible domestic resource," said Michael McDiarmid, wind program manager for the New Mexico Energy Minerals and Natural Resources Department. "I think it's important for our energy future to have more wind energy."

Wind energy's rise in the nation has been meteoric, though it is still a tiny slice of the nation's overall energy supply. Last year, more than a third of the new power added to the electric grid was from wind energy, according to the American Wind Energy Association. Currently, about 5 million U.S. homes are powered in part by wind.

The Coalition for Clean Affordable Energy says wind is one of the cheapest renewable energy sources currently available and the "most likely candidate at present for large, green-power programs in New Mexico."

Besides the wind farm proposed by Chicago-based Invenergy in San Miguel County, one is proposed for the broad sage plateau west of Taos. Other wind energy facilities are planned on more than 530,000 acres of state trust lands and on private land in southeastern New Mexico.

The state ranks 12th in the U.S. in potential wind energy capacity, with 49,700 megawatts possible. Under state regulations, utility companies in New Mexico must produce 20 percent of total energy needs from renewable resources by 2020, at least 20 percent of it from wind.

Wind power may be clean, but a big factor attracting major energy companies and investors is the chance to make a profit. Tax incentives and the increasingly competitive wholesale price of wind compared to coal or natural gas makes wind facilities worth building, McDiarmid said.

All that revenue might be nice for companies, but electricity-rate payers in low-income communities such as Bernal and villages in El Valle on the mesa's west side wonder what's in it for them when a wind power company such as Invenergy comes knocking at the door. "This feels like a big company coming into a small community to make money. We get all of the ramifications and none of the benefits," said Gloria Gonzales, a community organizer who lives at the base of the mesa near Ribera.

A giant wind turbine turns gracefully on Argonne Mesa, southwest of Santa Rosa in Guadalupe County, creating a steady swoosh as each of its three blades pass the tower. A row of turbines stretches along the mesa top for miles, glowing white in the sun.

In the wind farm's operations facility at the base of the mesa, maintenance technician Russ Sanford said he likes his job. "There are great opportunities, good pay, and it's steady work," he said.

And it lets him stay in Santa Rosa, where he's lived most of his life.

Sanford, a former electrician, trained through Mitsubishi to work at the Argonne Mesa facility. Most of the eight other men he works with are from nearby towns.

The lure of good paying jobs for local people in job-short rural towns is an attraction that wind energy companies promote.

Cash for county coffers is another.

Andy Madrid, Guadalupe County's manager, said the county will receive $4.3 million over a 30-year period from the Argonne Mesa Wind Facility's first phase, while the local school district will make another $1.9 million in that time. A new phase now under construction will mean more revenue.

Madrid said Santa Rosa doubled its gross-receipts-tax revenue in a year and a half during the wind facility's construction. The money was used to upgrade buildings and leverage matching funds for new buildings. "It has a very big impact," Madrid said.

In San Miguel County, Oliver Perea, president of the San Miguel del Bado Land Grant Association, whose members own land around El Valle, said if the Invenergy wind project really benefited the residents, he wouldn't oppose it. "But right now, there are more cons than pros," he said.

Debates are raging within environmental circles about what is really "green" energy. Those who point out potential problems with wind power facilities are slammed as NIMBYs (people who say Not In My Back Yard). "We are in the position where the 'burden of proof' is upon us in an area and time when everyone who uses the word green (and wind) is good," said Pamela Rosenburg, a resident of an off-grid community in Taos County that opposes a proposed nearby wind energy farm.

Meagan, the plasterer, once visited a wind farm in Kansas and found it graceful and quiet. "I'm such a supporter of renewable energy that I never thought there could be anything wrong with it," she said.

But when a slender tower to measure wind speed was installed near her property two years ago and she found out about the Invenergy project, she and other neighbors in the valley began researching large-scale wind farms. What they found out disturbed them: Noise, flashing lights at night, impacts on wildlife and dramatically changed landscapes are all issues other people living near wind farms have dealt with, and scientists are trying to evaluate.

The wind energy industry says many of those concerns date to older wind technology and new turbines create few problems. Mark Jacobson, Invenergy's business development director, said the company has faced opposition over the same issues in many places where the company proposed wind farms, but in general, residents grew to see the benefits.

Jim Cummings, founder of the Santa Fe-based Acoustic Ecology Institute, said wind proponents "slip into WARYDU (We Are Right; You Don't Understand) rhetoric. If we are to forge a reliable energy future that is respectful of both the environment and the rights of neighbors, we'll need to move past knee-jerk reactions on both sides," he said.

In a 2006 report on the benefits of wind to rural communities, Invenergy said three things are needed for siting wind turbines: willing landowners, a steady wind at 264 feet above ground and an available transmission line.

What's not required in New Mexico is approval from any state agency if the project is on private land — meaning little oversight of wind farms takes place.

The state's Public Regulation Commission only gets involved if a wind farm is larger than 300 megawatts, and to date, none have been that large. On state trust land, the State Land Office makes prospective wind farm companies go through an application process and meet county ordinances.

In New Mexico and most states, it's up to the counties, and few have ordinances geared specifically to wind farms. San Miguel County approved a wind farm ordinance in 2003, probably the state's first. Invenergy's project is the test case. "This one could be a template," said the county's planning director, Alex Tafoya. "Or we might find out it isn't worth a darn."

Hugh Ley, a former San Miguel County commissioner, said it is critical for counties to have specific ordinances for wind energy facilities. "Otherwise they will be making arbitrary and capricious decisions based on which way the wind is blowing," he said.

Last year, the National Academies, an interdisciplinary group of scientists who advise the federal government, examined wind farm impacts in the mid-Atlantic states and concluded that governments need better guidelines for evaluating wind projects and advising developers.

Agencies and counties are trying to catch up.

The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are both revising their recommendations for wind turbine placement based on new information about the impacts on wildlife.

Torrance County recently adopted a wind ordinance, and Union County has one in the works. But most counties handle applications for wind farms under existing land-use ordinances.

Without a more critical look at placement, some worry about what will be lost.

"Renewable energy is not free energy," said Bill Dolson, a pilot, computer engineer and landscape artist in El Valle. "All energy has a cost. In the case of wind energy, that cost is the destruction of the rural landscape on a national level if measures are not put into place to regulate the placement of wind facilities."

Residents of communities in El Valle think a wider conversation about wind energy is needed around the state.

They formed a group and last week hosted a well-attended meeting in Santa Fe to discuss wind energy. They've met with Gov. Bill Richardson and House Speaker Ben Luján, with the help of actor and neighbor Val Kilmer, to talk about the need for better wind-energy regulations.

Some renewable energy advocates say as the state and the nation consider new energy sources, it is a prime time to rethink the entire energy grid. Simply building large-scale wind power systems located far from customers to replace equally remote coal-fired power plants might not be the answer.

"I am not anti-wind, but I have questions about big towers and the industrial wind farm approach," Meagan said. "It is important to do this carefully, thoughtfully and do it right the first time. We may not have a second chance."

Related News

B.C. Diverting Critical Minerals, Energy from U.S

Canadian Softwood Lumber Tariffs challenge British Columbia's forestry sector, strain U.S.-Canada trade, and risk redirecting critical minerals and energy resources, threatening North American supply chains, manufacturing, and energy security across integrated markets.

 

Key Points

Duties imposed by the U.S. on Canadian lumber, affecting BC forestry, trade flows, and North American energy security.

✅ U.S. duties strain BC forestry and cross-border supply chains

✅ Risks redirecting critical minerals and energy exports

✅ Tariff rollback could bolster North American energy security

 

British Columbia Premier David Eby has raised concerns that U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber are prompting the province to redirect its critical minerals and energy resources, while B.C. challenges Alberta's electricity export restrictions domestically, away from the United States. In a recent interview, Eby emphasized the broader implications of these tariffs, suggesting they could undermine North American energy security and put electricity exports at risk across the border.

Since 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce has imposed tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber imports, alleging that Canadian producers benefit from unfair subsidies. These duties have been a persistent source of tension between the two nations, coinciding with Canadian support for energy and mineral tariffs and significantly impacting British Columbia's forestry sector—a cornerstone of the province's economy.

Premier Eby highlighted that the financial strain imposed by these tariffs not only jeopardizes the Canadian forestry industry but also has unintended repercussions for the United States. He pointed out that the economic challenges faced by Canadian producers might lead them to seek alternative markets for their critical minerals and energy resources, as tariff threats boost support for Canadian energy projects domestically, thereby reducing the supply to the U.S. British Columbia is endowed with an abundance of critical minerals essential for various industries, including technology and defense.

The potential redirection of these resources could have significant consequences for American industries that depend on a stable and affordable supply of critical minerals and energy. Eby suggested that the tariffs might incentivize Canadian producers to explore other international markets, even as experts advise against cutting Quebec's energy exports amid the tariff dispute, diminishing the availability of these vital resources to the U.S.

In light of these concerns, Premier Eby has advocated for a reassessment of the tariffs, urging a more cooperative approach between Canada and the United States. He contends that eliminating the tariffs would be mutually beneficial, aligning with views that Biden is better for Canada's energy sector and cross-border collaboration, ensuring a consistent supply of critical resources and fostering economic growth in both countries.

The issue of U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber remains complex and contentious, with far-reaching implications for trade relations and resource distribution between the two nations. As discussions continue, stakeholders on both sides of the border are closely monitoring the situation, noting that Ford has threatened to cut U.S. electricity exports amid trade tensions, recognizing the importance of collaboration in addressing shared economic and security challenges.

 

Related News

View more

Electricity alert ends after Alberta forced to rely on reserves to run grid

Alberta Power Grid Level 2 Alert signals AESO reserve power usage, load management, supply shortage from generator outages, low wind, and limited imports, urging peak demand conservation to avoid blackouts and preserve grid reliability.

 

Key Points

An AESO status where reserves power the grid and load management is used during supply constraints to prevent blackouts.

✅ Triggered by outages, low wind, and reduced import capacity

✅ Peak hours 4 to 7 pm saw conservation requests

✅ Several hundred MW margin from Level 3 load shedding

 

Alberta's energy grid ran on reserves Wednesday, after multiple factors led to a supply shortage, a scenario explored in U.S. grid COVID response discussions as operators plan for contingencies.

At 3:52 p.m. Wednesday, the Alberta Electric System Operator issued a Level 2 alert, meaning that reserves were being used to supply energy requirements and that load management procedures had been implemented, while operators elsewhere adopted Ontario power staffing lockdown measures during COVID-19 for continuity. The alert ended at 6:06 p.m.

"This is due to unplanned generator outages, low wind and a reduction of import capability," the agency said in a post to social media. "Supply is tight but still meeting demand."

AESO spokesperson Mike Deising said the intertie with Saskatchewan had tripped off, and an issue on the British Columbia side of the border, as seen during BC Hydro storm response events, meant the province couldn't import power. 

"There are no blackouts … this just means we're using our reserve power, and that's a standard procedure we'll deploy," he said. 

AESO had asked that people reduce their energy consumption between 4 and 7 p.m., similar to Cal ISO conservation calls during grid strain, which is typically when peak use occurs. 

Deising said the system was several hundred MWs away from needing to move to an alert Level 3, with utilities such as FortisAlberta precautions in place to support continuity, which is when power is cut off to some customers in order to keep the system operating. Deising said Level 2 alerts are fairly rare and occur every few years. The last Level 3 alert was in 2013. 

According to the supply and demand report on AESO's website, the load on the grid at 5 p.m. was 10,643 MW.

That's down significantly from last week, when a heat wave pushed demand to record highs on the grid, with loads in the 11,700 MW range, contrasting with Ontario demand drop during COVID when many stayed home. 

A heat warning was issued Wednesday for Edmonton and surrounding areas shortly before 4 p.m., with temperatures above 29 C expected over the next three days, with many households seeing residential electricity use up during such periods. 

 

Related News

View more

Judge: Texas Power Plants Exempt from Providing Electricity in Emergencies

Texas Blackout Liability Ruling clarifies appellate court findings in Houston, citing deregulated energy markets, ERCOT immunity, wholesale generators, retail providers, and 2021 winter storm lawsuits over grid failures and wrongful deaths.

 

Key Points

Houston judges held wholesale generators owe no duty to retail customers, limiting liability for 2021 blackout lawsuits.

✅ Court cites deregulated market and lack of privity to consumers

✅ Ruling shields generators from 2021 winter storm civil suits

✅ Plaintiffs plan appeals; legislature may address liability

 

Nearly three years after the devastating Texas blackout of 2021, a panel of judges from the First Court of Appeals in Houston has determined that major power companies cannot be held accountable for their failure to deliver electricity during the power grid crisis that unfolded, citing Texas' deregulated energy market as the reason.

This ruling appears likely to shield these companies from lawsuits that were filed against them in the aftermath of the blackout, leaving the families of those affected uncertain about where to seek justice.

In February 2021, a severe cold front swept over Texas, bringing extended periods of ice and snow. The extreme weather conditions increased energy demand while simultaneously reducing supply by causing power generators and the state's natural gas supply chain to freeze. This led to a blackout that left millions of Texans without power and water for nearly a week.

The state officially reported that almost 250 people lost their lives during the winter storm and subsequent blackout, although some analysts argue that this is a significant undercount and warn of blackout risks across the U.S. during severe heat as well.

In the wake of the storm, Texans affected by the energy system's failure began filing lawsuits, and lawmakers proposed a market bailout as political debate intensified. Some of these legal actions were directed against power generators whose plants either ceased to function during the storm or ran out of fuel for electricity generation.

After several years of legal proceedings, a three-judge panel was convened to evaluate the merits of these lawsuits.

This week, Chief Justice Terry Adams issued a unanimous opinion on behalf of the panel, stating, "Texas does not currently recognize a legal duty owed by wholesale power generators to retail customers to provide continuous electricity to the electric grid, and ultimately to the retail customers."

The opinion further clarified that major power generators "are now statutorily precluded by the legislature from having any direct relationship with retail customers of electricity."

This separation of power generation from transmission and retail electric sales in many parts of Texas resulted from energy market deregulation in the early 2000s, with the goal of reducing energy costs, and prompted electricity market reforms aimed at avoiding future blackouts.

Under the previous system, power companies were "vertically integrated," controlling generators, transmission lines, and selling the energy they produced directly to regional customers. However, in deregulated areas of Texas, competition was introduced, creating competing energy-generating companies and retail electric providers that purchase power wholesale and then sell it to residential consumers; meanwhile, electric cooperatives in other parts of the state remained member-owned providers.

Tré Fischer, a partner at the Jackson Walker law firm representing the power companies, explained, "One consequence of that was, because of the unbundling and the separation, you also don't have the same duties and obligations [to consumers]. The structure just doesn't allow for that direct relationship and correspondingly a direct obligation to continually supply the electricity even if there's a natural disaster or catastrophic event."

In the opinion, Justice Adams noted that when designing the Texas energy market, amid renewed interest in ways to improve electricity reliability across the grid, state lawmakers "could have codified the retail customers' asserted duty of continuous electricity on the part of wholesale power generators into law."

The recent ruling applies to five representative cases chosen by the panel out of hundreds filed after the blackout. Due to this decision, it is improbable that any of the lawsuits against power companies will succeed, according to the court's interpretation.

However, plaintiffs' attorneys have indicated their intention to appeal. They may request a review of the panel's opinion by the entire First Court of Appeals or appeal directly to the state supreme court.

The state Supreme Court had previously ruled that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the state's power grid operator, enjoys sovereign immunity and cannot be sued over the blackout.

This latest opinion raises the question of who, if anyone, can be held responsible for deaths and losses resulting from the blackout, a question left unaddressed by the court. Fischer commented, "If anything [the judges] were saying that is a question for the Texas legislature."

 

Related News

View more

U.A.E. Becomes First Arab Nation to Open a Nuclear Power Plant

UAE Nuclear Power Plant launches the Barakah facility, delivering clean electricity to the Middle East under IAEA safeguards amid Gulf tensions, proliferation risks, and debates over renewables, natural gas, grid resilience, and energy security.

 

Key Points

The UAE Nuclear Power Plant, Barakah, is a civilian facility expected to supply 25% of electricity under IAEA oversight.

✅ Barakah reactors target 25% of national electricity.

✅ Operates under IAEA oversight, no enrichment per US 123 deal.

✅ Raises regional security, proliferation, and environmental concerns.

 

The United Arab Emirates became the first Arab country to open a nuclear power plant on Saturday, following a crucial step in Abu Dhabi earlier in the project, raising concerns about the long-term consequences of introducing more nuclear programs to the Middle East.

Two other countries in the region — Israel and Iran — already have nuclear capabilities. Israel has an unacknowledged nuclear weapons arsenal and Iran has a controversial uranium enrichment program that it insists is solely for peaceful purposes.

The U.A.E., a tiny nation that has become a regional heavyweight and international business center, said it built the plant to decrease its reliance on the oil that has powered and enriched the country and its Gulf neighbors for decades. It said that once its four units were all running, the South Korean-designed plant would provide a quarter of the country’s electricity, with Unit 1 reaching 100% power as a milestone toward commercial operations.

Seeking to quiet fears that it was trying to build muscle to use against its regional rivals, it has insisted that it intends to use its nuclear program only for energy purposes.

But with Iran in a standoff with Western powers over its nuclear program, Israel in the neighborhood and tensions high among Gulf countries, some analysts view the new plant — and any that may follow — as a security and environmental headache. Other Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Iraq, are also starting or planning nuclear energy programs.

The Middle East is already riven with enmities that pit Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. against Iran, Qatar and Iran’s regional proxies. One of those proxies, the Yemen-based Houthi rebel group, claimed an attack on the Barakah plant when it was under construction in 2017.

And Iran is widely believed to be behind a series of attacks on Saudi oil facilities and oil tankers passing through the Gulf over the last year.

“The UAE’s investment in these four nuclear reactors risks further destabilizing the volatile Gulf region, damaging the environment and raising the possibility of nuclear proliferation,” Paul Dorfman, a researcher at University College London’s Energy Institute, wrote in an op-ed in March.

Noting that the U.A.E. had other energy options, including “some of the best solar energy resources in the world,” he added that “the nature of Emirate interest in nuclear may lie hidden in plain sight — nuclear weapon proliferation.”
But the U.A.E. has said it considered natural gas and renewable energy sources before dismissing them in favor of nuclear energy because they would not produce enough for its needs.

Offering evidence that its intentions are peaceful, it points to its collaborations with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has reviewed the Barakah project, and the United States, with which it signed a nuclear energy cooperation agreement in 2009 that allows it to receive nuclear materials and technical assistance from the United States while barring it from uranium enrichment and other possible bomb-development activities.

That has not persuaded Qatar, which last year lodged a complaint with the international nuclear watchdog group over the Barakah plant, calling it “a serious threat to the stability of the region and its environment.”

The U.A.E.’s oil exports account for about a quarter of its total gross domestic product. Despite its gusher of oil, it has imported increasing amounts of natural gas in recent years in part to power its energy-intensive desalination plants.

“We proudly witness the start of Barakah nuclear power plant operations, in alignment with the highest international safety standards,” Mohammed bin Zayed, the U.A.E.’s de facto ruler, tweeted on Saturday.

The new nuclear facility, which is in the Gharbiya region on the coast, close to Qatar and Saudi Arabia, is the first of several prospective Middle East nuclear plants, even as Europe reduces nuclear capacity elsewhere. Egypt plans to build a power plant with four nuclear reactors.

Saudi Arabia is also building a civilian nuclear reactor while pursuing a nuclear cooperation deal with the United States, and globally, China's nuclear program remains on a steady development track, though the Trump administration has said it would sign such an agreement only if it includes safeguards against weapons development.

 

Related News

View more

End of an Era: UK's Last Coal Power Station Goes Offline

UK Coal-Free Energy Transition highlights the West Burton A closure, accelerating renewable energy, wind, solar, nuclear, energy storage, smart grid upgrades, decarbonization, and net-zero goals while ensuring reliability, affordability, and a just transition for workers.

 

Key Points

A nationwide shift from coal power to renewables, storage, and nuclear to meet net-zero while maintaining reliability.

✅ West Burton A closure ends UK coal-fired generation

✅ Wind, solar, nuclear, storage strengthen grid resilience

✅ Government backs a just transition and worker retraining

 

The United Kingdom marks a historic turning point in its energy transition with the closure of the West Burton A Power Station in Nottinghamshire. This coal-fired power plant, once a symbol of the nation's industrial might, has now delivered its final watts of electricity to the grid, signalling the end of coal power generation in the UK.


A Landmark Shift Towards Clean Energy

The closure of West Burton A reflects a dramatic shift in the UK's energy landscape. Coal, the backbone of the UK's power generation for decades, is being phased out in favour of renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and nuclear. This transition aligns with the UK's ambitious net-zero emissions target, which aims to radically decarbonize the country's economy by 2050, though progress can falter, as when low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 amid changing market conditions.


Changing Energy Landscape

In the past, coal-fired power plants provided reliable, on-demand power. However, growing awareness of their significant environmental impact, particularly their contribution to climate change,  has accelerated the move away from coal. The UK government has set clear targets for eliminating coal power generation, and the industry has seen a steady decline as the share of coal fell to record lows in the electricity system.


Renewables Fill the Gap

The remarkable growth of renewable energy sources has enabled the transition away from coal. Wind and solar power, in particular, have experienced rapid development and falling costs, and in 2016 wind generated more electricity than coal for the first time. The UK now boasts substantial offshore and onshore wind farms and extensive solar installations. Additionally, investments in nuclear power and emerging energy storage technologies are increasing the reliability and diversity of the UK's power grid.


Economic and Social Impacts

The closure of the last coal-fired power station carries both economic and social impacts. While this change represents a victory for environmentalists, marked by milestones like a full week without coal power in Britain, the end of coal mining and power generation will lead to job losses in communities traditionally reliant on these industries.  The government has committed to supporting affected regions and facilitating a "just transition" for workers by retraining and creating new opportunities in the clean energy sector.


Global Implications

The UK's commitment to a coal-free future serves as a powerful example for other nations seeking to decarbonize their energy systems, including peers where Alberta's last coal plant closed recently. The nation's experience demonstrates that a transition to renewable energy sources is both possible and necessary. However, it also highlights the importance of careful planning and addressing the social and economic impacts of such a rapid energy revolution.


The Road Ahead

While the closure of West Burton A Power Station marks a historic milestone, the UK's transition to clean energy is far from complete. Maintaining a reliable and affordable energy supply, even as coal-free power records raise questions about energy bills, will require continued investment in renewable energy sources, energy storage, and advanced grid technologies.

 

Related News

View more

Electricity prices rise more than double EU average in first half of 2021

Estonia energy prices 2021 show sharp electricity hikes versus the EU average, mixed natural gas trends, kWh tariffs on Nord Pool spiking, and VAT, taxes, and support measures shaping household bills.

 

Key Points

EU-high electricity growth, early gas dip, then Nord Pool spikes; taxes, VAT, and subsidies shaped energy bills.

✅ Electricity up 7% on year; EU average 2.8% in H1 2021.

✅ Gas fell 1% in H1; later spiked with global market.

✅ VAT, taxes, excise and aid impacted household costs.

 

Estonia saw one of the highest rates in growth of electricity prices in the first half of 2021, compared with the same period in key trends in 2020 across Europe. These figures were posted before the more recent, record level of electricity and natural gas prices; the latter actually dropped slightly in Estonia in the first half of the year.

While electricity prices rose 7 percent on year in the first half of 2021 in Estonia, the average for the EU as a whole, where energy prices drove inflation across the bloc, stood at 2.8 percent over the same period, BNS reports.

Hungary (€10 per 100 Kwh) and Bulgaria (€10.20 per 100 Kwh) saw the lowest electricity prices EU-wide, while at €31.9 per KWH, Germany's power prices posted the most expensive rate, while Denmark, Belgium and Ireland also had high prices, in excess of €25 per Kwh.

Slovenia saw the highest electricity price rise, at 15 percent, and even the United States' electricity prices saw their steepest rise in decades during the same era, while Estonia was in third place, joint with Romania at 7 percent as noted, and behind Poland (8 percent).

Lithuania, on the other hand, experienced the third highest electricity price fall over the first half of 2021, compared with the same period in 2020, at 6 percent, behind only Cyprus (7 percent) and the Netherlands (10 percent, largely due to a tax cut).

Urmas Reinsalu: VAT on electricity, gas and heating needs to be lowered
The EU average price of electricity was €21.9 percent per Kwh, with taxes and excise accounting for 39 percent of this, even as prices in Spain surged across the day-ahead market.

Estonia has also seen severe electricity price rises in the second half of the year so far, with records set and then promptly broken several times earlier in October, while an Irish electricity provider raised prices amid similar pressures, and a support package for low income households rolled out for the winter season (October to March next year). The price on the Nord Pool market as of €95.01 per Kwh; a day earlier it had stood at €66.21 per Kwh, while on October 19 the price was €140.68 per Kwh.

Gas prices
Natural gas prices to household, meanwhile, dropped in Estonia over the same period, at a sharper rate (1 percent) than the EU average (0.5 percent), according to Eurostat.

Gas prices across the EU were lowest in Lithuania (€2.8 per 100 Kwh) and highest in the Netherlands (€9.6 per KWH), while the highest growth was seen in Denmark (19 percent), in the first half of 2021.

Natural gas prices dropped in 20 member states, however, with the largest drop again coming in Lithuania (23 percent).

The average price of natural gas EU-side in the first half of 2021 was €6.4, and taxes and excise duties accounted on average for 36 percent of the total.

The second half of the year has seen steep gas price rises in Estonia, largely the result of increases on the world market, though European gas benchmarks later fell to pre-Ukraine war levels.

 

Related News

View more

Sign Up for Electricity Forum’s Newsletter

Stay informed with our FREE Newsletter — get the latest news, breakthrough technologies, and expert insights, delivered straight to your inbox.

Electricity Today T&D Magazine Subscribe for FREE

Stay informed with the latest T&D policies and technologies.
  • Timely insights from industry experts
  • Practical solutions T&D engineers
  • Free access to every issue

Download the 2025 Electrical Training Catalog

Explore 50+ live, expert-led electrical training courses –

  • Interactive
  • Flexible
  • CEU-cerified