Rule drafted for carbon trapping

Thailand Covid-19 Electricity Bill Relief offers energy subsidies, tariff cuts, and free power for small meters, helping work-from-home users as authorities waive charges and discount kWh rates via EGAT, MEA, PEA for three months.

Key Points

Program waiving or cutting household electricity bills for 22 million homes in March-May, easing work-from-home costs.

✅ Free power for meters <= 5 amps; up to 10M homes

✅ Up to 800 kWh: pay February rate; above, 50% discount

✅ >3,000 kWh: 30% discount; program valid March-May

The Thailand cabinet has formally approved energy authorities' decision to either waive or cut electricity charges, similar to B.C. electricity relief measures, for 22 million households where people are working at home because of the coronavirus disease.

Energy Minister Sontirat Sontijirawong said after the cabinet meeting on Tuesday that the ministers acknowledged the step taken by from the Energy Regulatory Commission, the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand, the Metropolitan Electricity Authority and the Provincial Electricity Authority and noted parallels with Ontario's COVID-19 hydro plan rolled out to support ratepayers.

The measure would be valid for three months, from March to May, and cover 22 million households. It would cost the state 23.68 billion baht in lost revenue, he said, a pattern also seen with Ontario rate reductions affecting provincial revenues.

"The measure reduces the electricity charges burden on households. It is the cost of living of the people who are working from home to support the government's control of Covid-19," Mr Sontirat said.

The business sector also wants similar assistance, echoing sentiments from Ontario manufacturers during recent price reduction efforts. He said their requests were being considered.

Free electricity is extended to households with a power meter of no more than 5 amps. Up to 10 million households are expected to benefit, although issues like electricity payment challenges in India highlight different market contexts.

For households with a power meter over 5 amps, if their consumption does not exceed 800 units (kilowat hours), they will pay as much as they did in their February bill. The amount over 800 units will be subject to a 50 per cent discount, while elsewhere B.C. commercial consumption has fallen sharply.

Large houses that consume more than 3,000 units will get a 30 per cent discount, at a time when BC Hydro demand is down 10%.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Alberta Energy-Only Electricity Market faces capacity market debate, AESO price cap review, and coal-to-gas shifts by TransAlta and Capital Power, balancing reliability with volatility as investment signals evolve across Alberta's grid.

Key Points

An energy market paying generators only for electricity sold, with AESO oversight and a price cap guiding new capacity.

✅ AESO reviewing $999 per MW-h wholesale price cap.

✅ UCP retained energy-only; capacity market plan cancelled.

✅ TransAlta and Capital Power shift to coal-to-gas.

The Kenney government’s decision to cancel the redesign of Alberta’s electricity system to a capacity market won’t side-track two of the province’s largest power generators from converting coal-fired facilities to burn natural gas as part of Alberta’s shift from coal to cleaner energy overall.

But other changes could be coming to the province’s existing energy-only electricity market — including the alteration of the $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) wholesale price cap in Alberta.

The heads of TransAlta Corp. and Capital Power Corp. are proceeding with strategies to convert existing coal-fired power generating facilities to use natural gas in the coming years.

Calgary-based TransAlta first announced in 2017 that it would make the switch, as the NDP government was in the midst of overhauling the electricity sector and wind generation began to outpace coal in the province.

At the time, the Notley government planned to phase out coal-fired power by 2030, even as Alberta moved to retire coal by 2023 in practice, and shift Alberta into an electricity capacity market in 2021.

Such a move, made on the recommendation of the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), was intended to reduce price volatility and ensure system reliability.

Under the energy-only market, generators receive payments for electricity produced and sold into the grid. In a capacity market, generators are also paid for having power available on demand, regardless of how often they sell energy into the provincial grid.

The UCP government decided last month to ditch plans for a capacity market after consulting with the sector, saying it would be better for consumers.

On a conference call, TransAlta CEO Dawn Farrell said the company will convert coal-fired generating plants to burn gas, although it may alter the mix between simple conversions and switching to so-called “hybrid” plants.

(A hybrid conversion is a larger and more-expensive switch, as it includes installing a new gas turbine and heat-recovery steam generator, but it creates a highly efficient combined cycle unit.)

“Our view is fundamentally that carbon will be priced over the next 20 years no matter what,” she said Friday.

“We cannot get off coal fast enough in this company, and gas right now in Alberta is extremely inexpensive…

“So our coal-to-gas strategy is completely predicated on our belief that it’s not smart to be in carbon-intensive fuels for the future.”

Elsewhere in Canada, the Stop the Shock campaign has advocated for reviving coal power, underscoring ongoing policy debates.

The company said it’s planning the coal-to-gas conversion and re-powering of some or all of the units at its Keephills and Sundance facilities to gas-fired generation sometime between 2020 and 2023.

Similarly, Capital Power CEO Brian Vaasjo said the Edmonton-based company is moving ahead with a project that will allow it to burn both coal and natural gas at its Genesee generating station, even as Ontario’s energy minister sought to explore a halt to natural gas generation elsewhere.

In June, the company announced it would spend an estimated $50 million between 2019 and 2021 to allow it to use gas at the facility.

“What we’re doing is going to be dual fuel, so we will be able to operate 100 per cent natural gas or 100 per cent coal and everything in between,” Vaasjo said in an interview.

“You can expect to see we will be burning coal in the winter when natural gas prices are high, and we will be burning natural gas in summer when gas prices are real low.”

The transition comes as the government’s decision to stick with the energy-only market has been welcomed by players in the industry, and as Alberta's electricity future increasingly leans on wind resources.

A study by electricity consultancy EDC Associates found the capacity market would result in consumers paying an extra $1.4 billion in direct costs in 2021-22, as it required more generation to come online earlier than expected.

These additional costs would have accumulated to $10 billion by 2030, said EDC chief executive Duane-Reid Carlson.

For Capital Power, the decision to stick with the current system makes the province more investable in the future. Vaasjo said there was great uncertainty about the transition to a capacity market, and the possibility of rules shifting further.

Officials with Enmax Corp. said the city-owned utility would not have invested in future generation under the proposed capacity market.

“There is no short-term need (today) for new generation, so we’re just looking at the market and saying, ‘OK, as it evolves, we will see what happens,’” said Enmax vice-president Tim Boston.

Sticking with the energy-only market doesn’t mean Alberta will keep the existing rules.

In a July 25 letter, Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage directed AESO chair Will Bridge to examine if changes to the existing market are needed and report back by July 2020.

AESO, which manages the power grid, has been asked to investigate whether the current price cap of $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) should be changed.

The price ceiling hasn’t been altered since the energy-only market was implemented by the Klein government about two decades ago.

While allowing prices to go higher would increase volatility, reflecting lessons from Europe’s power crisis about scarcity pricing, during periods of rising demand and limited supply, it would send a signal to generators when investment in new generation is required, said Kent Fellows, a research associate at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

“Keeping the price (cap) too low could end up costing us more in the long run,” he said.

In a 2016 report, AESO said the province examined raising the price cap to $5,000 per MW-h, but “determined that it was unlikely to be successful in attracting investment due to increased price volatility.”

However, the amount of future generation that will be required in Alberta has been scaled back by the province.

In the United States, the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) allows wholesale power prices in the state to climb to a cap of $9,000 per megawatt hours as demand rises — as it did Tuesday in the midst of a heat wave, according to Bloomberg.

Jim Wachowich, legal counsel for the Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta, said while few players are exposed to spot electricity prices, he has yet to be convinced raising the cap would be good for Albertans.

“Someone has to show me the evidence, and I suspect that’s what the minister has asked the AESO to do,” he said.

Generators say they believe some tinkering is needed to the energy-only market to ensure new generation is built when it’s required.

“The No. 1 change that the government has to … think about is in pricing,” added Farrell.

“If you don’t have enough of a price signal in an energy-only market to attract new capital, you won’t get new capital — and you’ll run up against the wall.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ukraine Power Grid Attacks disrupt critical infrastructure as missiles and drones strike power plants, substations, and lines, causing blackouts. Emergency repairs, international aid, generators, and renewables bolster resilience and keep hospitals and water running.

Key Points

Russian strikes on Ukraine's power infrastructure cause blackouts; repairs and aid sustain hospitals and water.

✅ Missile and drone strikes target plants, substations, and lines.

✅ Crews restore power under fire; air defenses protect sites.

✅ Allies supply equipment, generators, and grid repair expertise.

Ukraine is facing an ongoing battle to maintain its electrical grid in the wake of relentless Russian attacks targeting power plants and energy infrastructure. These attacks, which have intensified in the last year, are part of Russia's broader strategy to weaken Ukraine's ability to function amid the ongoing war. Power plants, substations, and energy lines have become prime targets, with Russian forces using missiles and drones to destroy critical infrastructure, as western Ukraine power outages have shown, leaving millions of Ukrainians without electricity and heating during harsh winters.

The Ukrainian government and energy companies are working tirelessly to repair the damage and prevent total blackouts, while also trying to ensure that civilians have access to vital services like hospitals and water supplies. Ukraine has received support from international allies in the form of technical assistance and equipment to help strengthen its power grid, and electricity reserve updates suggest outages can be avoided if no new strikes occur. However, the ongoing nature of the attacks and the complexity of repairing such extensive damage make the situation extraordinarily difficult.

Despite these challenges, Ukraine's resilience is evident, even as winter pressures on the battlefront intensify operations. Energy workers are often working under dangerous conditions, risking their lives to restore power and prevent further devastation. The Ukrainian government has prioritized the protection of energy infrastructure, with military forces being deployed to safeguard workers and critical assets.

Meanwhile, the international community continues to support Ukraine through financial and technical aid, though some U.S. support programs have ended recently, as well as providing temporary power solutions, like generators, to keep essential services running. Some countries have even sent specialized equipment to help repair damaged power lines and energy plants more quickly.

The humanitarian consequences of these attacks are severe, as access to electricity means more than just light—it's crucial for heating, cooking, and powering medical equipment. With winter temperatures often dropping below freezing, plans to keep the lights on are vital to protect vulnerable communities, and the lack of reliable energy has put many lives at risk.

In response to the ongoing crisis, Ukraine has also focused on enhancing its energy independence, seeking alternatives to Russian-supplied energy. This includes exploring renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, and new energy solutions adopted by communities to overcome winter blackouts, which could help reduce reliance on traditional energy grids and provide more resilient options in the future.

The battle for energy infrastructure in Ukraine illustrates the broader struggle of the country to maintain its sovereignty and independence in the face of external aggression. The destruction of power plants is not only a military tactic but also a psychological one—meant to instill fear and disrupt daily life. However, the unwavering spirit of the Ukrainian people, alongside international support, including Ukraine's aid to Spain during blackouts as one example, continues to ensure that the fight to "keep the lights on" is far from over.

As Ukraine works tirelessly to repair its energy grid, it also faces the challenge of preparing for the long-term impact of these attacks. The ongoing war has highlighted the importance of securing energy infrastructure in modern conflicts, and the world is watching as Ukraine's resilience in this area could serve as a model for other nations facing similar threats.

Ukraine’s energy struggle is far from over, but its determination to keep the lights on remains a beacon of hope and defiance in the face of ongoing adversity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Quebec Hydropower Export Retaliation examines using electricity exports to counter U.S. tariffs amid Canada-U.S. trade tensions, weighing clean energy supply, grid reliability, energy security, legal risks, and long-term market impacts.

Key Points

Using Quebec electricity exports as leverage against U.S. tariffs, and its economic, legal, and diplomatic consequences.

✅ Revenue loss for Quebec and higher costs for U.S. consumers

✅ Risk of legal disputes under trade and energy agreements

✅ Long-term erosion of market share and grid cooperation

As trade tensions between Canada and the United States continue to escalate, with electricity exports at risk according to recent reporting, discussions have intensified around potential Canadian responses to the imposition of U.S. tariffs. One of the proposals gaining attention is the idea of reducing or even halting the export of energy from Quebec to the U.S. This measure has been suggested by some as a potential countermeasure to retaliate against the tariffs. However, experts and industry leaders are urging caution, emphasizing that the consequences of such a decision could have significant economic and diplomatic repercussions for both Canada and the United States.

Quebec plays a critical role in energy trade, particularly in supplying hydroelectric power to the United States, especially to the northeastern states, including New York where tariffs may spike energy prices according to analysts, strengthening the case for stable cross-border flows. This energy trade is deeply embedded in the economic fabric of both regions. For Quebec, the export of hydroelectric power represents a crucial source of revenue, while for the U.S., it provides access to a steady and reliable supply of clean, renewable energy. This mutually beneficial relationship has been a cornerstone of trade between the two countries, promoting economic stability and environmental sustainability.

In the wake of recent U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods, some policymakers have considered using energy exports as leverage, echoing threats to cut U.S. electricity exports in earlier disputes, to retaliate against what is viewed as an unfair trade practice. The idea is to reduce or stop the flow of electricity to the U.S. as a way to strike back at the tariffs and potentially force a change in U.S. policy. On the surface, this approach may appear to offer a viable means of exerting pressure. However, experts warn that such a move would be fraught with significant risks, both economically and diplomatically.

First and foremost, Quebec's economy is heavily reliant on revenue from hydroelectric exports to the U.S. Any reduction in these energy sales could have serious consequences for the province's economic stability, potentially resulting in job losses and a decrease in investment. The hydroelectric power sector is a major contributor to Quebec's GDP, and recent events, including a tariff threat delaying a green energy bill in Quebec, illustrate how trade tensions can ripple through the policy landscape, while disrupting this source of income could harm the provincial economy.

Additionally, experts caution that reducing energy exports could have long-term ramifications on the energy relationship between Quebec and the northeastern U.S. These two regions have developed a strong and interconnected energy network over the years, and abruptly cutting off the flow of electricity could damage this vital partnership. Legal challenges could arise under existing trade agreements, and even as tariff threats boost support for Canadian energy projects among some stakeholders, the situation would grow more complex. Such a move could also undermine trust between the two parties, making future negotiations on energy and other trade issues more difficult.

Another potential consequence of halting energy exports is that U.S. states may seek alternative sources of energy, diminishing Quebec's market share in the long run. As the U.S. has a growing demand for clean energy, especially as it looks to transition away from fossil fuels, and looks to Canada for green power in several regions, cutting off Quebec’s electricity could prompt U.S. states to invest in other forms of energy, including renewables or even nuclear power. This could have a lasting effect on Quebec's position in the U.S. energy market, making it harder for the province to regain its footing.

Moreover, reducing or ceasing energy exports could further exacerbate trade tensions, leading to even greater economic instability. The U.S. could retaliate by imposing additional tariffs on Canadian goods or taking other measures that would negatively impact Canada's economy. This could create a cycle of escalating trade barriers that would hurt both countries and undermine the broader North American trade relationship.

While the concept of using energy exports as a retaliatory tool may seem appealing to some, the experts' advice is clear: the potential economic and diplomatic costs of such a strategy outweigh the short-term benefits. Quebec’s role as an energy supplier to the U.S. is crucial to its own economy, and maintaining a stable, reliable energy trade relationship is essential for both parties. Rather than escalating tensions further, it may be more prudent for Canada and the U.S. to seek diplomatic solutions that preserve trade relations and minimize harm to their economies.

While the idea of using Quebec’s energy exports as leverage in response to U.S. tariffs may appear attractive on the surface, and despite polls showing support for tariffs on energy and minerals among Canadians, it carries significant risks. Experts emphasize the importance of maintaining a stable energy export strategy to protect Quebec’s economy and preserve positive diplomatic relations with the U.S. Both countries have much to lose from further escalating trade tensions, and a more measured approach is likely to yield better outcomes in the long run.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Climate Change Consensus and Disinformation highlights the 97% peer-reviewed agreement on human-caused warming, IPCC warnings, and how fossil fuel lobbying, misinformation, and astroturf tactics echo tobacco denial to mislead media and voters.

Key Points

Explains the 97% scientific consensus and the disinformation that obscures IPCC findings and misleads the public.

✅ 97% peer-reviewed consensus on human-caused climate change

✅ Fossil fuel funding drives denial and media misinformation

✅ IPCC and major scientific bodies confirm severe impacts

Orson Johnson says there is no scientific consensus on climate change. He’s wrong. A 2015 study by Drexel University’s Robert Brulle found that nearly $1 billion per year is being spent to support climate change denial. Electric utilities, fossil fuel and transportation sectors outspent environmental and renewable energy sectors by more than 10-to-1, undermining efforts to achieve net-zero electricity emissions globally. It is virtually the same strategy that tobacco companies used to deny the dangers of tobacco smoke, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to delay recognition of harm from tobacco smoke for decades, and today Trump's oil policies can similarly influence Wall Street's energy strategy. These are the same debunked sources Johnson quotes in his commentary.

The authors of six independent peer-reviewed papers on the consensus for human-caused climate change examined “the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies,” according to an abstract in Environmental Research Letters, and public support for action is strong, with most Americans willing to contribute financially to climate solutions. Of the 30,000 scientists (people with a bachelor’s degree or higher in science) Johnson cites, only 39 specialized in climate science.

A new study by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change draws on momentum from the Katowice climate summit to warn that “The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe.”

California’s Office of Planning and Research says: “Every major scientific organization in the United States with relevant expertise has confirmed the IPCC’s conclusion, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The list of international scientific organizations affirming the worldwide consensus on climate change is even longer.”

Former President Obama argued that decarbonization is irreversible as the clean-energy transition accelerates.

This issue is a symptom of an even larger problem. Recently, Facebook announced it would continue to allow political ads that contain obvious lies. America’s corporate news media has been following the same policy for years. Printing stories and commentary with information that is clearly not true or where data has been cherry-picked to strongly imply a lie, such as claims that Ottawa is making electricity more expensive for Albertans, sets up a false equivalence fallacy in which two incompatible arguments appear to be logically equivalent when, in fact, they are not.

Conservatives focus exclusively on progressive income taxes to argue that rich people pay a disproportionate share of taxes while ignoring that they take a disproportionate share of income, and federal income taxes account for less than half of taxes collected, with almost all of the other taxes being heavily regressive. Critics of single-payer healthcare disregard that almost every other developed country on earth has been using single-payer for decades to provide better care with universal coverage at roughly half the cost. Other examples abound, including recent policy milestones like the historic U.S. climate deal that nevertheless become targets of misinformation. We live in a society where truth is no longer truth, reality is supplanted by alternative facts and where crippling polarization is driven by the inability to agree on basic facts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Heavy-Duty Truck Electrification is disrupting the aftermarket as diesel declines: fewer parts, regenerative braking, emissions rules, e-drives, gearboxes, and software engineering needs reshape service demand, while ICE fleets persist for years.

Key Points

Transition of heavy trucks to EV systems, reducing parts and emissions while reshaping aftermarket service and skills.

✅ 33% fewer parts; regenerative braking slashes brake wear

✅ Diesel share declines; EVs and natural gas slowly gain

✅ Aftermarket shifts to e-drives, gearboxes, software and service

Those who sell parts and repair trucks might feel uneasy when reports emerge about a coming generation of electric trucks.

There are reportedly about 33% fewer parts to consider when internal combustion engines and transmissions are replaced by electric motors. Features such as regenerative braking are expected to dramatically reduce brake wear. As for many of the fluids needed to keep components moving? They can remain in their tanks and drums.

Think of them as disruptors. But presenters during the annual Heavy Duty Aftermarket Dialogue are stressing that the changes are not coming overnight. Chris Patterson, a consultant and former Daimler Trucks North America CEO, noted that the Daimler electrification plan underscores the shift as he counts just 50 electrified heavy trucks in North America.

About 88% of today’s trucks run on diesel, with the remaining 12% mostly powered by gasoline, said John Blodgett, MacKay and Company’s vice-president of sales and marketing. Five years out, even amid talk of an EV inflection point, he expects 1% to be electric, 2% to be natural gas, 12% to be gasoline, and 84% on diesel.

But a decade from now, forecasts suggest a split of 76% diesel, 11% gasoline, 7% electric, and 5% natural gas, with a fraction of a percent relying on hydrogen-electric power. Existing internal combustion engines will still be in service, and need to be serviced, but aftermarket suppliers are now preparing for their roles in the mix, especially as Canada’s EV opportunity comes into focus for North American players.

“This is real, for sure,” said Delphi Technologies CEO Rick Dauch.

Aftermarket support is needed
“As programs are launched five to six years from now, what are the parts coming back?” he asked the crowd. “Braking and steering. The fuel injection business will go down, but not for 20-25 years.” The electric vehicles will also require a gear box and motor.

“You still have a business model,” he assured the crowd of aftermarket professionals.

Shifting emissions standards are largely responsible for the transformation that is occurring. In Europe, Volkswagen’s diesel emissions scandal and future emissions rules of Euro 7 will essentially sideline diesel-powered cars, even as electric buses have yet to take over transit systems. Delphi’s light-duty diesel business has dropped 70% in just five years, leading to plant closures in Spain, France and England.

“We’ve got a billion-dollar business in electrification, last year down $200 million because of the downturn in light-duty diesel controllers,” Dauch said. “We think we’re going to double our electrification business in five years.”

That has meant opening five new plants in Eastern European markets like Turkey, Romania and Poland alone.

Deciding when the market will emerge is no small task, however. One new plant in China offered manufacturing capacity in July 2019, but it has yet to make any electric vehicle parts, highlighting mainstream EV challenges tied to policy shifts, because the Chinese government changed the incentive plans for electric vehicles.

‘All in’ on electric vehicles
Dana has also gone “all in” on electrification, said chairman and CEO Jim Kamsickas, referring to Dana’s work on e-drives with Kenworth and Peterbilt. Its gasket business is focusing on the needs of battery cooling systems and enclosures.

But he also puts the demand for new electric vehicle systems in perspective. “The mechanical piece is still going to be there.”

The demand for the new components and systems, however, has both companies challenged to find enough capable software engineers. Delphi has 1,600 of them now, and it needs more.

“Just being a motor supplier, just being an inverter supplier, just being a gearbox supplier itself, yes you’ll get value out of that. But in the longhaul you’re going to need to have engineers,” Kamsickas said of the work to develop systems.

Dauch noted that Delphi will leave the capital-intensive work of producing batteries to other companies in markets like China and Korea. “We’re going to make the systems that are in between – inverters, chargers, battery management systems,” he said.

Difficult change
But people working for European companies that have been built around diesel components are facing difficult days. Dauch refers to one German village with a population of 1,200, about 800 of whom build diesel engine parts. That business is working furiously to shift to producing gasoline parts.

Electrification will face hurdles of its own, of course. Major cities around the world are looking to ban diesel-powered vehicles by 2050, but they still lack the infrastructure needed to charge all the cars and truck fleet charging at scale, he added.

Kamsickas welcomes the disruptive forces.

“This is great,” he said. “It’s making us all think a little differently. It’s just that business models have had to pivot – for you, for us, for everybody.”

They need to be balanced against other business demands, including evolving cross-border EV collaboration dynamics, too.

Said Kamsickas: “Working through the disruption of electrification, it’s how do you financially manage that? Oh, by the way, the last time I checked there are [company] shareholders and stakeholders you need to take care of.”

“It’s going to be tough,” Dauch agreed, referring to the changes for suppliers. “The next three to four years are really going to be game changes. “There’ll be some survivors and some losers, that’s for sure.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News