Waste coal plant on hold because of economy

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario NDP Hydro Plan proposes ending time-of-use pricing, buying back Hydro One, lowering electricity rates, curbing rural delivery fees, and restoring public ownership to ease household bills amid debates with PCs and Liberals over costs.

Key Points

A plan to end time-of-use pricing, buy back Hydro One, and cut bills via public ownership and fair delivery fees.

✅ End time-of-use pricing; normal schedules without penalties

✅ Repurchase Hydro One; restore public ownership

✅ Cap rural delivery fees; address oversupply to cut rates

Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath says her party’s hydro plan will reduce families’ electricity bills, a theme also seen in Manitoba Hydro debates and the NDP is the only choice to get Hydro One back in public hands.

Howarth outlined the plan Saturday morning outside the home of a young family who say they struggle with their electricity bills — in particular over the extra laundry they now have after the birth of their twin boys.

An NDP government would end time-of-use pricing, which charges higher rates during peak times and lower rates after hours, “so that people aren’t punished for cooking dinner at dinner time,” Horwath said at a later campaign stop in Orillia, “so people can live normal lives and still afford their hydro bill.”

#google#

An NDP government would end time-of-use pricing, which gives lower rates for off-peak usage, Howarth said, separate from a recent subsidized hydro plan during COVID-19. The change would mean families wouldn't be "forced to wait until night when the pricing is lower to do laundry," and wouldn't have to rearrange their lives around chores.

The pricing scheme was supposed to lower prices and help smooth out demand for electricity, especially during peak times, but has failed, she said.

In order to lower hydro bills, Horwath said an NDP government would buy back shares of Hydro One sold off under the Wynne government, which she said has led to high prices and exorbitant executive pay among executives. The NDP plan would also make sure rural families do not pay more in delivery fees than city dwellers, and curb the oversupply of energy to bring prices down.

Critics have said the NDP plan is too costly and will take a long time to implement, and investors see too many unknowns about Hydro One.

"The NDP's plan to buy back Hydro One and continue moving forward with a carbon tax will cost taxpayers billions," said Melissa Lantsman, a spokesperson for PC Leader Doug Ford.

"Only Doug Ford has a plan to reduce hydro rates and put money back in people's pockets. We'll reduce your hydro bill by 12 per cent."

Ford has said he will fire Hydro One CEO Mayo Schmidt, and has dubbed him the $6-million-dollar man.

Horwath has said both Ford and Liberal Leader Kathleen Wynne will end up costing Ontarians more in electricity if one of them is elected come June 7. Their "hydro scheme is the wrong plan," she said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

TEP Undergrounding Policy prioritizes selective underground power lines to manage wildfire risk, engineering costs, and ratepayer impacts, balancing transmission and distribution reliability with right-of-way, safety, and vegetation management per Arizona regulators.

Key Points

A selective TEP approach to bury lines where safety, engineering, and cost justify undergrounding.

✅ Selective undergrounding for feeders near substations

✅ Balances wildfire mitigation, reliability, and ratepayer costs

✅ Follows ACC rules, BLM and USFS vegetation management

Though wildfires in California caused by power lines have prompted calls for more underground lines, Tucson Electric Power Co. plans to keep to its policy of burying lines selectively for safety.

Like many other utilities, TEP typically doesn’t install its long-range, high-voltage transmission lines, such as the TransWest Express project, and distribution equipment underground because of higher costs that would be passed on to ratepayers, TEP spokesman Joe Barrios said.

But the company will sometimes bury lower-voltage lines and equipment where it is cost-effective or needed for safety as utilities adapt to climate change across North America, or if customers or developers are willing to pay the higher installation costs

Underground installations generally include additional engineering expenses, right-of-way acquisition for projects like the New England Clean Power Link in other regions, and added labor and materials, Barrios said.

“This practice avoids passing along unnecessary costs to customers through their rates, so that all customers are not asked to subsidize a discretionary expenditure that primarily benefits residents or property owners in one small area of our service territory,” he said, adding that the Arizona Corporation Commission has supported the company’s policy.

Even so, TEP will place equipment underground in some circumstances if engineering or safety concerns, including electrical safety tips that utilities promote during storm season, justify the additional cost of underground installation, Barrios said.

In fact, lower-voltage “feeder” lines emerging from distribution substations are typically installed underground until the lines reach a point where they can be safely brought above ground, he added.

While in California PG&E has shut off power during windy weather to avoid wildfires in forested areas traversed by its power lines after events like the Drum Fire last June, TEP doesn’t face the same kind of wildfire risk, Barrios said.

Most of TEP’s 5,000 miles of transmission and distribution lines aren’t located in heavily forested areas that would raise fire concerns, though large urban systems have seen outages after station fires in Los Angeles, he said.

However, TEP has an active program of monitoring transmission lines and trimming vegetation to maintain a fire-safety buffer zone and address risks from vandalism such as copper theft where applicable, in compliance with federal regulations and in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

California energy rebate freeze disrupts heat pump incentives, HVAC upgrades, and climate funding, as federal uncertainty stalls Inflation Reduction Act support, delaying home electrification, energy efficiency gains, and greenhouse gas emissions reductions statewide.

Key Points

A statewide pause on $290M incentives for heat pumps and HVAC upgrades due to federal climate funding uncertainty.

✅ $290M program paused amid federal funding freeze

✅ Heat pump, HVAC, electrification upgrades delayed

✅ Previously approved rebates honored; new apps halted

California’s push for a more energy-efficient future has hit a significant roadblock as the state pauses a $290 million rebate program aimed at helping homeowners replace inefficient heating and cooling systems with more energy-efficient alternatives. The California Energy Commission announced the suspension of the program, citing uncertainty stemming from President Donald Trump’s decision to freeze funding for various climate-related initiatives.

The Halted Program

The energy rebate program, which utilizes federal funding to encourage the use of energy-efficient appliances such as heat pumps, was a crucial part of California’s efforts to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. By providing financial incentives for homeowners to upgrade to more efficient heating and cooling systems, the program aimed to make green energy solutions more accessible and affordable to residents. The rebate program had been popular, with many homeowners eager to participate in the initiative to lower their energy costs and improve the sustainability of their homes.

However, due to the uncertainty surrounding federal funding, the California Energy Commission announced on Monday that it would no longer be accepting new applications for the program. The agency did clarify that it would continue to honor rebates for applications that had already been approved. The pause will remain in effect until the Trump administration provides more clarity regarding the program's future funding.

The Trump Administration’s Role

This move highlights a broader issue regarding access to federal funding for state-level energy programs. The Trump administration’s decision to freeze funding for climate-related initiatives has left many states in limbo, as previously approved federal money has not been distributed as expected. Despite federal court rulings directing the Trump administration to restore these funds, states like California are still struggling to navigate the uncertainty of climate-related financial support from the federal government.

California’s decision to pause the rebate program comes after similar actions by other states. Arizona paused a similar program just a week prior, and Rhode Island had already paused new applications earlier this year. These states are all recipients of funding from a larger $4.3 billion initiative under the Inflation Reduction Act, which is designed to help homeowners purchase energy-efficient appliances like heat pumps, water heaters, and electric cooktops.

Impact of the Freeze

The pause of California's rebate program has serious implications for both consumers and the state’s energy goals. For residents, the halt means delays in the ability to upgrade to more energy-efficient home systems, which could lead to higher energy costs in the short term, a concern amid soaring electricity prices across the state.

The $290 million program was a significant step in encouraging homeowners to invest in energy efficiency, and its suspension leaves a gap in the availability of resources for those who were hoping to make energy-saving upgrades. Many of these upgrades are not just beneficial to homeowners, but they also contribute to the state’s overall energy efficiency goals, helping to reduce reliance on non-renewable energy sources, even as California's dependence on fossil fuels persists, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

Federal and State Tensions

The freeze in funding is just one of many points of tension between the Trump administration and states like California, which have pursued aggressive environmental policies aimed at reducing emissions and combating climate change. California has often found itself at odds with the federal government on environmental issues, especially under the leadership of President Trump. The state’s ambitious environmental policies have sometimes clashed with the federal government's approach, including efforts to wind down its fossil fuel industry in line with climate goals.

In this case, the freeze on climate-related funding appears to be part of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to limit federal spending on environmental programs, and as regulators weigh whether the state may need more power plants, planning remains complex. While the freeze impacts states that are working to transition to clean energy, critics argue that such moves undermine efforts to tackle climate change and could slow down progress toward a greener future.

The Path Forward

For California, the next steps will depend heavily on the actions of the federal government. While the state can continue to push for climate funding in the courts, the lack of clarity around the release of federal funds creates uncertainty for state programs that rely on these resources. As California continues to navigate this funding freeze, it will need to explore alternative solutions to keep its energy efficiency programs on track, such as efforts to revamp electricity rates to clean the grid, even in the face of federal challenges.

In the meantime, California residents and homeowners who were hoping to take advantage of the rebate program may have to wait until further clarification from the federal government is provided, even as officials warn of a looming electricity shortage in coming years. Whether the program can be restored or expanded in the future remains to be seen, but for now, the pause serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggles that states face when dealing with shifting federal priorities.

As the issue unfolds, other states facing similar challenges may take cues from California’s actions, and with California exporting energy policies to Western states, broader conversations about how federal and state governments can collaborate to ensure that energy efficiency initiatives and climate goals are not sidelined due to political or budgetary differences.

California’s decision to pause its $290 million energy rebate program is a significant development in the ongoing struggle between state and federal governments over climate-related funding. The uncertainty created by the Trump administration’s freeze on energy efficiency programs has led to disruptions in state-level efforts to promote sustainability and reduce emissions. As the situation continues to evolve, both California and other states will need to consider how to move forward without relying on federal funding that may or may not be available in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

UK Clean Electricity Record as wind, solar, and biomass boost renewable energy output, slashing carbon emissions and wholesale power prices during lockdown, while lower demand challenges grid balancing and drives a drop to 153 g/kWh.

Key Points

A milestone where wind, solar and biomass lifted renewables, cutting carbon intensity to 153 g/kWh during lockdown.

✅ Carbon intensity averaged 153 g/kWh in Q2 2020.

✅ Renewables output rose 32% via wind, solar, biomass.

✅ Wholesale power prices slumped 42% amid lower demand.

U.K electricity has never been cleaner. As wind, solar and biomass plants produced more power than ever in the second quarter, with a new wind generation record set, carbon emissions fell by a third from a year earlier, according to Drax Electric Insight’s quarterly report. Power prices slumped 42 per cent as demand plunged during lockdown. Total renewable energy output jumped 32 per cent in the period, as wind became the main source of electricity at times.

“The past few months have given the country a glimpse into the future for our power system, with higher levels of renewable energy, as wind led the power mix, and lower demand making for a difficult balancing act,”said  Iain Staffell, from Imperial College London and lead author of the report.

The findings of the report point to the impact energy efficiency can have on reducing emissions, as coal's share fell to record lows across the electricity system. Millions of people furloughed or working from home and shuttered shops up and down the country resulted in daily electricity demand dropping about 10% and being about four gigawatts lower than expected in the three months through June.

Average carbon emissions fell to a new low of 153 grams per kWh of electricity consumed over the quarter, as coal-free generation records were extended, even though low-carbon generation stalled in 2019, according to the report.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Russia-Ukraine Energy Ceasefire Violations escalate as U.S.-brokered truce frays, with drone strikes, shelling, and grid attacks disrupting gas supply and power infrastructure across Kursk, Luhansk, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk, prompting sanctions calls.

Key Points

Alleged breaches of a U.S.-brokered truce, with both sides striking power grids, gas lines, and critical energy nodes.

✅ Drone and artillery attacks reported on power and gas assets

✅ Both sides accuse each other of breaking truce terms

✅ U.S. mediation faces verification and compliance hurdles

Russia and Ukraine have traded fresh accusations regarding violations of a fragile energy ceasefire, brokered by the United States, which both sides had agreed to last month. These new allegations highlight the ongoing tensions between the two nations and the challenges involved in implementing a truce amid global energy instability in such a complex and volatile conflict.

The U.S.-brokered ceasefire had initially aimed to reduce the intensity of the fighting, specifically in the energy sector, where both sides had previously targeted each other’s infrastructure. Despite this agreement, the accusations on Wednesday suggest that both Russia and Ukraine have continued their attacks on each other's energy facilities, a crucial aspect of the ceasefire’s terms.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence claimed that Ukrainian forces had launched drone and shelling attacks in the western Kursk region, cutting power to over 1,500 homes. This attack allegedly targeted key infrastructure, leaving several localities without electricity. Additionally, in the Russian-controlled part of Ukraine's Luhansk region, a Ukrainian drone strike hit a gas distribution station, severely disrupting the gas supply for over 11,000 customers in the area around Svatove.

In response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Russia of breaking the ceasefire. He claimed that Russian drone strikes had targeted an energy substation in Ukraine’s Sumy region, while artillery fire had damaged a power line in the Dnipropetrovsk region, leaving nearly 4,000 consumers without power even as Ukraine increasingly leans on electricity imports to stabilize the grid. Ukraine's accusations painted a picture of continued Russian aggression against critical energy infrastructure, a strategy that had previously been a hallmark of Russia’s broader military operations in the war.

The U.S. had brokered the energy truce as a potential stepping stone toward a more comprehensive ceasefire agreement. However, the repeated violations raise questions about the truce’s viability and the broader prospects for peace between Russia and Ukraine. Both sides are accusing each other of undermining the agreement, which had already been delicate due to previous suspicions and mistrust. In particular, the U.S. administration, led by President Donald Trump, has expressed impatience with the slow progress in moving toward a lasting peace, amid debates over U.S. national energy security priorities.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov defended Russia’s stance, emphasizing that President Vladimir Putin had shown a commitment to peace by agreeing to the energy truce, despite what he termed as daily Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure. He reiterated that Russia would continue to cooperate with the U.S., even though the Ukrainian strikes were ongoing. This perspective suggests that Russia remains committed to the truce but views Ukraine’s actions as violations that could potentially derail efforts to reach a more comprehensive ceasefire.

On the other hand, President Zelensky argued that Russia was not adhering to the terms of the ceasefire. He urged the U.S. to take a stronger stance against Russia, including increasing sanctions on Moscow as punishment for its violations. Zelensky’s call for heightened sanctions is a continuation of his efforts to pressure international actors, particularly the U.S. and European countries, to provide greater energy security support for Ukraine’s struggle and to hold Russia accountable for its actions.

The ceasefire’s fragility is also reflected in the differing views between Ukraine and Russia on what constitutes a successful resolution. Ukraine had proposed a full 30-day ceasefire, but President Putin declined, raising concerns about monitoring and verifying compliance with the terms. This disagreement suggests that both sides are not entirely aligned on what a peaceful resolution should look like and how it can be realistically achieved.

The situation is complicated by the broader context of the war, which has now dragged on for over three years. The conflict has seen significant casualties, immense destruction, and deep geopolitical ramifications. Both countries are heavily reliant on their energy infrastructures, making any attack on these systems not only a military tactic but also a form of economic warfare. Energy resources, including electricity and natural gas, have become central to the ongoing conflict, with both sides using them to exert pressure on the other amid Europe's deepening energy crisis that reverberates beyond the battlefield.

As of now, it remains unclear whether the recent violations of the energy ceasefire will lead to a breakdown of the truce or whether the United States will intervene further to restore compliance, even as Ukraine prepares for winter amid energy challenges. The situation remains fluid, and the international community continues to closely monitor the developments. The U.S., which played a central role in brokering the energy ceasefire, has made it clear that it expects both sides to uphold the terms of the agreement and work toward a more permanent cessation of hostilities.

The continued accusations between Russia and Ukraine regarding the breach of the energy ceasefire underscore the challenges of negotiating peace in such a complex and entrenched conflict. While both sides claim to be upholding their commitments, the reality on the ground suggests that reaching a full and lasting peace will require much more than temporary truces. The international community, particularly the U.S., will likely continue to push for stronger actions to enforce compliance and to prevent the conflict from further escalating. The outcome of this dispute will have significant implications for both countries and the broader European energy landscape and security landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News