DoE is pessimistic about LED lighting

Fort Frances Microgrid aims to boost reliability in Ontario with grid-connected and island modes, Siemens feasibility study, renewable energy integration, EV charging expansion, and resilience modeled after First Nations projects and regional biomass initiatives.

Key Points

A community microgrid in Fort Frances enabling grid and island modes to improve reliability and integrate renewables.

✅ Siemens-led feasibility via FedNor funding

✅ Grid-connected or islanded for outage resilience

✅ Integrates renewables, EV charging, and industry growth

When the power goes out in Fort Frances, Ont., the community may be left in the dark for hours.

The hydro system's unreliability — caused by its location on the provincial power grid — has prompted the town to seek a creative solution: its own self-contained electricity grid with its own source of power, known as a microgrid. 

Located more than 340 kilometres west of Thunder Bay, Ont., on the border of Minnesota, near the Great Northern Transmission Line corridor, Fort Frances gets its power from a single supply point on Ontario's grid. 

"Sometimes, it's inevitable that we have to have like a six- to eight-hour power outage while equipment is being worked on, and that is no longer acceptable to many of our customers," said Joerg Ruppenstein, president and chief executive officer of Fort Frances Power Corporation.

While Ontario's electrical grid serves the entire province, and national efforts explore macrogrids, a microgrid is contained within a community. Fort Frances hopes to develop an integrated, community-based electric microgrid system that can operate in two modes:

• Grid-connected mode, which means it's connected to the provincial grid and informed by western grid planning approaches
• Island mode, which means it's disconnected from the provincial grid and operates independently

The ability to switch between modes allows flexibility. If a storm knocks down a line, the community will still have power.

The town has been given grant funding from the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario (FedNor), echoing smart grid funding in Sault Ste. Marie initiatives, for the project. On Monday night, council voted to grant a request for proposal to Siemens Canada Limited to conduct a feasibility study into a microgrid system.

The study, anticipated to be completed by the end of 2023 or early 2024, will assess what an integrated community-based microgrid system could look like in the town of just over 7,000 people, said Faisal Anwar, chief administrative officer of Fort Frances. A timeline for construction will be determined after that. 

The community is still reeling from the closure of the Resolute Forest Products pulp and paper mill in 2014 and faces a declining population, said Ruppenstein. It's hoped the microgrid system will help attract new industry to replace those lost workers and jobs, drawing on Manitoba's hydro experience as a model.

This gives the town a competitive advantage.

"If we were conceivably to attract a larger industrial player that would consume a considerable amount of energy, it would result in reduced rates for everyone…we're the only utility really in Ontario that can offer that model," Ruppenstein said.

The project can also incorporate renewable energy like solar or wind power, as seen in B.C.'s clean energy shift efforts, into the microgrid system, and support the growth of electric vehicles, he said. Many residents fill their gas tanks in Minnesota because it's cheaper, but Fort Frances has the potential to become a hub for electric vehicle charging.

A few remote First Nations have recently switched to microgrid systems fuelled by green energy, including Gull Bay First Nation and Fort Severn First Nation. These are communities that have historically relied on diesel fuel either flown in, which is incredibly expensive, or transported via ice roads, which are seeing shorter seasons each year.

Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson was in Thunder Bay, Ont., to announce $35 million for a biomass generation facility in Whitesand First Nation, complementing federal funding for the Manitoba-Saskatchewan transmission line elsewhere in the region.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

CCUS in the U.S. Power Sector drives investments as DOE grants, 45Q tax credits, and EPA carbon rules spur carbon capture, geologic storage, and utilization, while debates persist over costs, transparency, reliability, and emissions safeguards.

Key Points

CCUS captures CO2 from power plants for storage or use, backed by 45Q tax credits, DOE funding, and EPA carbon rules.

✅ DOE grants and 45Q credits aim to de-risk project economics.

✅ EPA rules may require capture rates to meet emissions limits.

✅ Transparency and MRV guard against tax credit abuse.

New public and private funding, including DOE $110M for CCUS announced recently, and expected strong federal power plant emissions reduction standards have accelerated electricity sector investments in carbon capture, utilization and storage,’ or CCUS, projects but some worry it is good money thrown after bad.

CCUS separates carbon from a fossil fuel-burning power plant’s exhaust through carbon capture methods for geologic storage or use in industrial and other applications, according to the Department of Energy. Fossil fuel industry giants like Calpine and Chevron are looking to take advantage of new federal tax credits and grant funding for CCUS to manage potentially high costs in meeting power plant performance requirements, amid growing investor pressure for climate reporting, including new rules, expected from EPA soon, on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants.

Power companies have “ambitious plans” to add CCUS to power plants, estimated to cause 25% of U.S. CO2 emissions. As a result, the power sector “needs CCUS in its toolkit,” said DOE Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Assistant Secretary Brad Crabtree. Successful pilots and demonstrations “will add to investor confidence and lead to more deployment” to provide dispatchable clean energy, including emerging CO2-to-electricity approaches for power system reliability after 2030,| he added.

But environmentalists and others insist potentially cost-prohibitive CCUS infrastructure, including CO2 storage hub initiatives, must still prove itself effective under rigorous and transparent federal oversight.

“The vast majority of long-term U.S. power sector needs can be met without fossil generation, and better options are being deployed and in development,” Sierra Club Senior Advisor, Strategic Research and Development, Jeremy Fisher, said, pointing to carbon-free electricity investments gaining momentum in the market. CCUS “may be needed, but without better guardrails, power sector abuses of federal funding could lead to increased emissions and stranded fossil assets,” he added.

New DOE CCUS project grants, an increased $85 per metric ton, or tonne, federal 45Q tax credit, and the forthcoming EPA power plant carbon rules and the federal coal plan will do for CCUS what similar policies did for renewables, advocates and opponents agreed. But controversial past CCUS performance and tax credit abuses must be avoided with transparent reporting requirements for CO2 capture, opponents added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

UK Energy Price Cap aims to protect consumers on gas and electricity bills, tackling Big Six overcharging on default and standard variable tariffs, with Ofgem and MPs pushing urgent reforms to the broken market.

Key Points

A temporary absolute limit on default energy tariffs to shield consumers from overcharging on gas and electricity bills.

✅ Caps standard variable and default tariffs to protect loyalty.

✅ Targets Big Six pricing; oversight by Ofgem and BEIS MPs.

✅ Aims for winter protection while maintaining competition.

MPs are calling for a cap on the price of gas and electricity, with questions over the expected cost of a UK price cap amid fears consumers are being ripped off.

The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Select Committee says the Big Six energy companies have been overcharging for years.

MPs on the committee backed plans for a temporary absolute cap, noting debates over EU gas price cap strategies to fix what they called a "broken" energy market.

Labour's Rachel Reeves, who chairs the committee, said: "The energy market is broken. Energy is an essential good and yet millions of customers are ripped off for staying loyal to their energy provider.

"An energy price cap is now necessary and the Government must act urgently to ensure it is in place to protect customers next winter.

"The Big Six energy companies might whine and wail about the introduction of a price cap but they've been overcharging their customers on default and SVTs (standard variable tariffs) for years and their recent feeble efforts to move consumers off these tariffs has only served to highlight the need for this intervention."

The Committee also criticised Ofgem for failing to protect customers, especially the most vulnerable.

Draft legislation for an absolute cap on energy tariffs was published by the Government last year, and later developments like the Energy Security Bill have kept reform on the agenda.

But Business Secretary Greg Clark refused to guarantee that the flagship plans would be in place by next winter, despite warnings about high winter energy costs for households.

Committee members said there was a "clear lack of will" on the part of the Big Six to do what was necessary, including exploring decoupling gas and electricity prices, to deal with pricing problems.

A report from the committee found that customers are paying £1.4bn a year more than they should be under the current system.

Around 12 million households are stuck on poor-value tariffs, according to the report.

National assistance charity Citizens Advice said "loyal and vulnerable" customers had been "ripped off" for too long.

Chief executive Gillian Guy said: "An absolute cap, as recommended by the committee, is crucial to securing protection for the largest number of customers while continuing to provide competition in the market. This should apply to all default tariffs."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EU Solar Impact on Electricity Prices highlights how rising solar PV penetration drives negative pricing, shifts peak hours, pressures wholesale markets, and challenges grid balancing, interconnection, and flexibility amid changing demand and renewables growth.

Key Points

Explains how rising solar PV cuts wholesale prices, shifts negative-price hours, and strains grid flexibility.

✅ Negative pricing events surge with higher solar penetration.

✅ Afternoon price dips replace night-time wind-led lows.

✅ Grid balancing, interconnectors, and flexibility become critical.

The latest EU electricity market report has confirmed the affect deeper penetration of solar is having on wholesale electricity prices more broadly.

The Quarterly Report on European Electricity Markets for the final three months of last year noted the number of periods of negative electricity pricing doubled from 2019, to almost 1,600 such events, as global renewables set new records in deployment across markets.

Having experienced just three negative price events in 2019, the Netherlands recorded almost 100 last year “amid a dramatic increase in solar PV capacity,” in the nation, according to the report.

Whilst stressing the exceptional nature of the Covid-19 pandemic on power consumption patterns, the quarterly update also noted a shift in the hours during which negative electric pricing occurred in renewables poster child Germany. Previously such events were most common at night, during periods of high wind speed and low demand, but 2020 saw a switch to afternoon negative pricing. “Thus,” stated the report, “solar PV became the main driver behind prices falling into negative territory in the German market in 2020, as Germany's solar boost accelerated, and also put afternoon prices under pressure generally.”

The report also highlighted two instances of scarce electricity–in mid September and on December 9–as evidence of the problems associated with accommodating a rising proportion of intermittent clean energy capacity into the grid, and called for more joined-up cross-border power networks, amid pushback from Russian oil and gas across the continent.

Rising solar generation–along with higher gas output, year on year–also helped the Netherlands generate a net surplus of electricity last year, after being a net importer “for many years.” The EU report also noted a beneficial effect of rising solar generation capacity on Hungary‘s national electricity account, and cited a solar “boom” in that country and Poland, mirroring rapid solar PV growth in China in recent years.

With Covid-19 falls in demand helping renewables generate more of Europe's electricity (39%) than fossil fuels (36%) for the first time, as renewables surpassed fossil fuels across Europe, the market report observed the 5% of the bloc's power produced from solar closed in on the 6% accounted for by hard coal. In the final three months of the year, European solar output rose 12%, year on year, to 18 TWh and “the increase was almost single-handedly driven by Spain,” the study added.

With coal and lignite-fired power plunging 22% last year across the bloc, it is estimated the European power sector reduced its carbon footprint 14% as part of Europe's green surge although the quarterly report warned cold weather, lower wind speeds and rising gas prices in the opening months of this year are likely to see carbon emissions rebound.

There was good news on the transport front, though, with the report stating the scale of the European “electrically-charged vehicle” fleet doubled in 2020, to 2 million, with almost half a million of the new registrations arriving in the final months of the year. That meant cars with plug sockets accounted for a remarkable 17% of new purchases in Q4, twice the proportion seen in China and a slice of the pie six times bigger than such products claimed in the U.S.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Alberta Coal Phase-Out signals a clean energy transition, replacing coal with natural gas and renewables, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, leveraging a carbon levy, and supporting workers in Alberta's evolving electricity market.

Key Points

Alberta Coal Phase-Out moves power from coal to lower-emission natural gas and renewables to reduce grid emissions.

✅ Last coal plant closed: Genesee Generating Station, Sept 30, 2023

✅ Shift to natural gas and renewables lowers emissions

✅ Carbon levy and incentives accelerated clean power build-out

The closure of the Genesee Generating Station on September 30, 2023, marked a significant milestone in Alberta's energy history, as the province moved to retire coal power by 2023 ahead of its 2030 provincial deadline. The Genesee, located near Calgary, was the province's last remaining coal-fired power plant. Its closure represents the culmination of a multi-year effort to transition Alberta's electricity sector away from coal and towards cleaner sources of energy.

For decades, coal was the backbone of Alberta's electricity grid. Coal-fired plants were reliable and relatively inexpensive to operate. However, coal also has a significant environmental impact. The burning of coal releases greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, a major contributor to climate change. Coal plants also produce air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, which can cause respiratory problems and acid rain, and in some regions electricity is projected to get dirtier as gas use expands.

In recognition of these environmental concerns, the Alberta government began to develop plans to phase out coal-fired power generation in the early 2000s. The government implemented a number of policies to encourage the shift from coal to cleaner energy such as natural gas and renewable energy. These policies included providing financial incentives for the construction of new natural gas plants and renewable energy facilities, as well as imposing a carbon levy on coal-fired generation.

The phase-out of coal was also driven by economic factors. The cost of natural gas has declined significantly in recent years, making it a more competitive fuel source for electricity generation as producers switch to gas under evolving market conditions. Additionally, the Alberta government faced increasing pressure from the federal government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The transition away from coal has not been without its challenges. Coal mining and coal-fired power generation have long been important parts of Alberta's economy. The closure of coal plants has resulted in job losses in the affected communities. The government has implemented programs to help workers transition to new jobs in the clean energy sector.

Despite these challenges, the closure of the Genesee Generating Station is a positive development for Alberta's environment and climate. Coal-fired power generation is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta, and recent wind generation outpacing coal underscores the sector's transformation. The closure of the Genesee is expected to result in a significant reduction in emissions, helping Alberta to meet its climate change targets.

The transition away from coal also presents opportunities for Alberta. The province has vast natural gas resources, which can be used to generate electricity with lower emissions than coal. Alberta is also well-positioned to develop renewable energy sources, such as wind power and solar power. These renewable energy sources can help to further reduce emissions and create new jobs in the clean energy sector.

The closure of the Genesee Generating Station is a significant milestone in Alberta's energy history. It represents the end of an era for coal-fired power generation in the province, a shift mirrored by the UK's last coal station going offline earlier this year. However, it also marks the beginning of a new era for Alberta's energy sector. By transitioning to cleaner sources of energy, Alberta can reduce its environmental impact and create a more sustainable energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Biofuels vs EV Subsidies examines tradeoffs in decarbonization, greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy deployment, charging infrastructure, energy security, lifecycle emissions, and transportation sector policy to meet climate goals and accelerate sustainable mobility.

Key Points

Policy tradeoffs weighing biofuels and EVs to cut GHGs, boost energy security, and advance clean transportation.

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

California is at the forefront of the transition to a greener economy, driven by its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. As part of its strategy, the state is grappling with the question of whether it should subsidize out-of-state biofuels or in-state electric vehicles (EVs) to meet these goals. Both options come with their own sets of benefits and challenges, and the decision carries significant implications for the state’s environmental, economic, and energy landscapes.

The Case for Biofuels

Biofuels have long been promoted as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. They are made from organic materials such as agricultural crops, algae, and waste, which means they can potentially reduce carbon emissions in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. In the context of California, biofuels—particularly ethanol and biodiesel—are viewed as a way to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is one of the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsidizing out-of-state biofuels can help California reduce its reliance on imported oil while promoting the development of biofuel industries in other states. This approach may have immediate benefits, as biofuels are widely available and can be blended with conventional fuels to lower carbon emissions right away. It also allows the state to diversify its energy sources, improving energy security by reducing dependency on oil imports.

Moreover, biofuels can be produced in many regions across the United States, including rural areas. By subsidizing out-of-state biofuels, California could foster economic development in these regions, creating jobs and stimulating agricultural innovation. This approach could also support farmers who grow the feedstock for biofuel production, boosting the agricultural economy in the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks. The environmental benefits of biofuels are often debated. Critics argue that the production of biofuels—particularly those made from food crops like corn—can contribute to deforestation, water pollution, and increased food prices. Additionally, biofuels are not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, as their production and combustion still release greenhouse gases. When considering whether to subsidize biofuels, California must also account for the full lifecycle emissions associated with their production and use.

The Case for Electric Vehicles

In contrast to biofuels, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a more direct pathway to reducing emissions from transportation. EVs are powered by electricity, and when coupled with renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, they can provide a nearly zero-emission solution for personal and commercial transportation. California has already invested heavily in EV infrastructure, including expanding its network of charging stations and exploring how EVs can support grid stability through vehicle-to-grid approaches, and offering incentives for consumers to purchase EVs.

Subsidizing in-state EVs could stimulate job creation and innovation within California's thriving clean-tech industry, with other states such as New Mexico projecting substantial economic gains from transportation electrification, and the state has already become a hub for electric vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla, Rivian, and several battery manufacturers. Supporting the EV industry could further strengthen California’s position as a global leader in green technology, attracting investment and fostering growth in related sectors such as battery manufacturing, renewable energy, and smart grid technology.

Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are substantial. As the electric grid becomes cleaner with an increasing share of renewable energy, EVs will become even greener, with lower lifecycle emissions than biofuels. By prioritizing EVs, California could further reduce its carbon footprint while also achieving its long-term climate goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

However, there are challenges. EV adoption in California remains a significant undertaking, requiring major investments in infrastructure as they challenge state power grids in the near term, technology, and consumer incentives. The cost of EVs, although decreasing, still remains a barrier for many consumers. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is essential for EV batteries. While renewable energy is expanding, California’s grid is still reliant on fossil fuels to some degree, and in other jurisdictions such as Canada's 2019 electricity mix fossil generation remains significant, meaning that the full emissions benefit of EVs is not realized until the grid is entirely powered by clean energy.

A Balancing Act

The debate between subsidizing out-of-state biofuels and in-state electric vehicles is ultimately a question of how best to allocate California’s resources to meet its climate and economic goals. Biofuels may offer a quicker fix for reducing emissions from existing vehicles, but their long-term benefits are more limited compared to the transformative potential of electric vehicles, even as some analysts warn of policy pitfalls that could complicate the transition.

However, biofuels still have a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy-duty transportation, where electrification may not be as feasible in the near future. Thus, a mixed strategy that includes both subsidies for EVs and biofuels may be the most effective approach.

Ultimately, California’s decision will likely depend on a combination of factors, including technological advancements, 2021 electricity lessons, and the pace of renewable energy deployment, and the state’s ability to balance short-term needs with long-term environmental goals. The road ahead is not easy, but California's leadership in clean energy will be crucial in shaping the nation’s response to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News