Sahara solar project a job boom for Germany: study

Alberta Electricity Market faces energy-only vs capacity debate as transmission, distribution, and administration fees surge; rural rates rise amid a regulated duopoly of investor-owned utilities, prompting calls for competition, innovation, and lower bills.

Key Points

Alberta's electricity market is an energy-only system with rising delivery charges and limited rural competition.

✅ Energy-only design; capacity market scrapped

✅ Delivery charges outpace energy on monthly bills

✅ Rural duopoly limits competition and raises rates

Last week, Alberta’s new Energy Minister Sonya Savage announced the government, through its new electricity rules, would be scrapping plans to shift Alberta’s electricity to a capacity market and would instead be “restoring certainty in the electricity system.”

The proposed transition from energy only to a capacity market is a contentious subject as a market reshuffle unfolds across the province that many Albertans probably don’t know much about. Our electricity market is not a particularly glamorous subject. It’s complicated and confusing and what matters most to ordinary Albertans is how it affects their monthly bills.

What they may not realize is that the cost of their actual electricity used is often just a small fraction of their bill amid rising electricity prices across the province. The majority on an average electricity bill is actually the cost of delivering that electricity from the generator to your house. Charges for transmission, distribution and franchise and administration fees are quickly pushing many Alberta households to the limit with soaring bills.

According to data from Alberta’s Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA), and alongside policy changes, in 2004 the average monthly transmission costs for residential regulated-rate customers was below $2. In 2018 that cost was averaging nearly $27 a month. The increase is equally dramatic in distribution rates which have more than doubled across the province and range wildly, averaging from as low as $10 a month in 2004 to over $80 a month for some residential regulated-rate customers in 2018.

Where you live determines who delivers your electricity. In Alberta’s biggest cities and a handful of others the distribution systems are municipally owned and operated. Outside those select municipalities most of Alberta’s electricity is delivered by two private companies which operate as a regulated duopoly. In fact, two investor-owned utilities deliver power to over 95 per cent of rural Alberta and they continue to increase their share by purchasing the few rural electricity co-ops that remained their only competition in the market. The cost of buying out their competition is then passed on to the customers, driving rates even higher.

As the CEO of Alberta’s largest remaining electricity co-op, I know very well that as the price of materials, equipment and skilled labour increase, the cost of operating follows. If it costs more to build and maintain an electricity distribution system there will inevitably be a cost increase passed on to the consumer. The question Albertans should be asking is how much is too much and where is all that money going with these private- investor-owned utilities, as the sector faces profound change under provincial leadership?

The reforms to Alberta’s electricity system brought in by Premier Klein in the late 1900s and early 2000s contributed to a surge in investment in the sector and led to an explosion of competition in both electricity generation and retail. 

More players entered the field which put downward pressure on electricity rates, encouraged innovation and gave consumers a competitive choice, even as a Calgary electricity retailer urged the government to scrap the overhaul. But the legislation and regulations that govern rural electricity distribution in Alberta continue to facilitate and even encourage the concentration of ownership among two players which is certainly not in the interests of rural Albertans.

It is also not in the spirit of the United Conservative Party platform commitment to a “market-based” system. A market-based system suggests more competition. Instead, what we have is something approaching a monopoly for many Albertans. The UCP promised a review of the transition to a capacity market that would determine which market would be best for Alberta, and through proposed electricity market changes has decided that we will remain an energy-only market.
Consumers in rural Alberta need electricity to produce the goods that power our biggest industries. Instead of regulating and approving continued rate increases from private multinational corporations, we need to drive competition and innovation that can push rates down and encourage growth and investment in rural-based industries and communities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. EV and Hybrid Sales 2024 show slower adoption versus gas-powered cars, as charging infrastructure gaps, range anxiety, higher upfront costs, and affordability concerns persist despite incentives, battery tech advances, and expanding fast-charging networks.

Key Points

They represent 10-15% of U.S. car sales, lagging gas models due to costs, charging gaps, range anxiety, and access.

✅ 10-15% of U.S. auto sales; gas cars dominate

✅ Barriers: upfront cost, limited charging, range anxiety

✅ Incentives, battery tech, and networks may boost adoption

Sales of hybrid and electric vehicles (EVs) in the U.S. are continuing to trail behind traditional gas-powered vehicles in 2024, despite significant advancements in automotive technology and growing public awareness of environmental concerns. While the electric vehicle market has seen steady growth and recent sales momentum over the past few years, the gap between EVs and gasoline-powered cars remains wide.

In 2024, hybrid and electric vehicles are projected to account for roughly 10-15% of total car sales in the U.S., a figure that, though significant, still lags far behind the sales of gas-powered vehicles and follows a Q1 2024 EV market share dip in the U.S., according to recent data. Analysts point to several factors contributing to this slower adoption rate, including higher upfront costs, limited charging infrastructure, and consumer concerns over range anxiety. Additionally, while EVs and hybrids offer lower lifetime operating costs, the initial price difference remains a hurdle for many prospective buyers.

One of the key challenges for EV sales continues to be the perception of cost, even as analyses show they can be better for the planet and often your budget over time. While federal and state incentives have made EVs more affordable, especially for lower-income buyers, the price tag for many electric models remains steep, particularly for higher-end vehicles. Even with government rebates, EVs can still be priced higher than their gasoline counterparts, making them less accessible for middle-class consumers. Many potential buyers are also hesitant to make the switch, unsure if the long-term savings will outweigh the initial investment.

Another critical factor is the limited charging infrastructure in many parts of the country. Though major cities have seen significant improvements in charging stations, rural areas and smaller towns still lack the necessary infrastructure to support widespread EV use. This uneven distribution of charging stations leads to concerns about being stranded in areas without access to fast-charging options. While automakers are working on expanding charging networks, the pace of this development is slow, and EVs won't go mainstream until key problems are fixed according to industry leaders.

Range anxiety is also a continuing issue, despite improvements in battery technology. Though newer electric vehicles can go further on a single charge than ever before, the range of many EVs still doesn't meet the expectations of some drivers, particularly those who regularly take long road trips or live in rural areas. The longer charging times and the necessity of planning routes around charging stations add to the hesitation, especially when gasoline-powered vehicles provide greater convenience and flexibility.

The shift toward EVs is further hindered by the continued dominance of gas-powered cars in the market. Gasoline vehicles benefit from decades of development, an extensive fueling infrastructure, and familiarity with the technology. For many consumers, the convenience, affordability, and ease of use of gas-powered vehicles still outweigh the benefits of switching to an electric alternative. Additionally, with fluctuating fuel prices, many drivers continue to find gas-powered cars relatively cost-effective in terms of daily commuting, especially when compared to the current costs of EV ownership.

Despite these challenges, there is hope for a future shift. The federal government’s push for stricter emissions regulations and tax incentives continues to fuel growth in the electric vehicle market. As automakers ramp up production and more affordable options become available, EV sales are expected to increase in the coming years. Companies like Tesla, Ford, whose hybrids are getting a boost, and General Motors are leading the charge, while new manufacturers like Rivian and Lucid Motors are offering alternatives to traditional gasoline vehicles.

Furthermore, the development of new technologies, such as solid-state batteries and faster charging systems, could help alleviate some of the current drawbacks of electric vehicles. If these advancements reach mass-market production in the next few years, they could help make EVs a more attractive and practical option for consumers, aligning with within-a-decade adoption forecasts from some industry observers.

In conclusion, while hybrid and electric vehicles are growing in popularity, gas-powered vehicles continue to dominate the U.S. car market in 2024. Challenges such as high upfront costs, limited charging infrastructure, and concerns about range persist, making it difficult for many consumers to make the switch to electric even as they ask if it's time to buy an EV in 2024. However, with continued investment in technology and infrastructure, the gap between EVs and gas-powered vehicles could narrow in the years to come.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

FirstEnergy Nuclear Plant Closures threaten Ohio and Pennsylvania jobs, tax revenue, and grid stability, as Nuclear Matters and Brattle Group warn of higher carbon emissions and market pressures from PJM and cheap natural gas.

Key Points

Planned shutdowns of Davis-Besse, Perry, and Beaver Valley, with regional economic and carbon impacts.

✅ Over 3,000 direct jobs and local tax revenue at risk

✅ Emissions may rise until renewables scale, possibly into 2034

✅ Debate over subsidies, market design, and PJM capacity rules

A national nuclear lobby wants to remind people what's at stake for Ohio and Pennsylvania if FirstEnergy Solutions follows through with plans to shut down three nuclear plants over the next three years, including its Davis-Besse nuclear plant east of Toledo.

A report issued Monday by Nuclear Matters largely echoes concerns raised by FES, a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp., and other supporters of nuclear power about economic and environmental hardships and brownout risks that will likely result from the planned closures.

Along with Davis-Besse, Perry nuclear plant east of Cleveland and the twin-reactor Beaver Valley nuclear complex west of Pittsburgh are slated to close.

#google#

"If these plants close, the livelihoods of thousands of Ohio and Pennsylvania residents will disappear. The over 3,000 highly skilled individuals directly employed by these sites will leave to seek employment at other facilities still operating around the country," Lonnie Stephenson, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers president, said in a statement distributed by Nuclear Matters. Mr. Stephenson also serves on the Nuclear Matters advocacy council.

This new report and others like it are part of an extensive campaign by nuclear energy advocates to court state and federal legislators one more time for tens of millions of dollars of financial support or at least legislation that better suits the nuclear industry. Critics allege such pleas amount to a request for massive government bailouts, arguing that deregulated electricity markets should not subsidize nuclear.

The latest report was prepared for Nuclear Matters by the Brattle Group, a firm that specializes in analyzing economic, finance, and regulatory issues for corporations, law firms, and governments.

"These announced retirements create a real urgency to learn what would happen if these plants are lost," Dean Murphy, the Brattle report's lead author, said.

More than 3,000 jobs would be lost, as would millions of dollars in tax revenue. It also could take as long as 2034 for the region's climate-altering carbon emissions to be brought back down to existing levels, based on current growth projections for solar- and wind-powered projects, and initiatives such as ending coal by 2032 by some utilities, Mr. Murphy said.

His group's report only takes into account nuclear plant operations, though. Many of those who oppose nuclear power have long pointed out that mining uranium for nuclear plant fuel generates substantial emissions, as does the process of producing steel cladding for fuel bundles and the enrichment-production of that fuel. Still, nuclear has ranked among the better performers in reports that have taken such a broader look at overall emissions.

FES has accused the regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, of creating market conditions that favor natural gas and, thus, make it almost impossible for nuclear to compete throughout its 13-state region, a debate intensified by proposed electricity pricing changes at the federal level.

PJM has strongly denied those accusations, and has said it anticipates no shortfalls in energy distribution if those nuclear plants close prematurely, even as a recent FERC decision on grid policy drew industry criticism.

FES, citing massive losses, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The target dates for closures of the FES properties are May 31, 2020 for Davis-Besse; May 31, 2021 for Perry and Beaver Valley Unit 1, and Oct. 31, 2021 for Beaver Valley Unit 2.

In addition to the three FES sites, the report includes information about the Three Mile Island Unit 1 plant near Harrisburg, Pa., which Chicago-based Exelon Generation Corp. has previously announced will be shut down in 2019. That plant and others are experiencing similar difficulties the FES plants face by competing in a market radically changed by record-low natural gas prices.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

FERC Grid Resiliency Pricing Opposition underscores industry groups, RTOs, and ISOs rejecting DOE's NOPR, warning against out-of-market subsidies for coal and nuclear, favoring competitive markets, reliability, and true grid resilience.

Key Points

Coalition urging FERC to reject DOE's NOPR subsidies, protecting reliability and competitive power markets.

✅ Industry groups, RTOs, ISOs oppose DOE NOPR

✅ PJM reports sufficient reliability and resilience

✅ Reject out-of-market aid to coal, nuclear

A diverse group of a dozen energy industry associations representing oil, natural gas, wind, solar, efficiency, and other energy technologies today submitted reply comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) continuing their opposition to the Department of Energy's (DOE) proposed rulemaking on grid resiliency pricing and electricity pricing changes within competitive markets, in the next step in this FERC proceeding.

Action by FERC, as lawmakers urge movement on aggregated DERs to modernize markets, is expected by December 11.

In these comments, this broad group of energy industry associations notes that most of the comments submitted initially by an unprecedented volume of filers, including grid operators whose markets would be impacted by the proposed rule, urged FERC not to adopt DOE'sproposed rule to provide out-of-market financial support to uneconomic coal and nuclear power plants in the wholesale electricity markets overseen by FERC.

Just a small set of interests - those that would benefit financially from discriminatory pricing that favors coal and nuclear plants - argued in favor of the rule put forward by DOE in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or NOPR, as did coal and business interests in related regulatory debates. But even those interests - termed 'NOPR Beneficiaries' by the energy associations - failed to provide adequate justification for FERC to approve the rule, and their specific alternative proposals for implementing the bailout of these plants were just as flawed as the DOE plan, according to the energy industry associations.

'The joint comments filed today with partners across the energy spectrum reflect the overwhelming majority view that this proposed rulemaking by FERC is unprecedented and unwarranted, said Todd Foley, Senior Vice President, Policy & Government Affairs, American Council on Renewable Energy.

We're hopeful that FERC will rule against an anti-competitive distortion of the electricity marketplace and avoid new unnecessary initiatives that increase power prices for American consumers and businesses.'

In the new reply comments submitted in response to the initial comments filed by hundreds of stakeholders on or before October 23 - the energy industry associations made the following points: Despite hundreds of comments filed, no new information was brought forth to validate the assertion - by DOE or the NOPR Beneficiaries - that an emergency exists that requires accelerated action to prop up certain power plants that are failing in competitive electricity markets: 'The record in this proceeding, including the initial comments, does not support the discriminatory payments proposed' by DOE, state the industry groups.

Nearly all of the initial comments filed in the matter take issue with the DOE NOPR and its claim of imminent threats to the reliability and resilience of the electric power system, despite reports of coal and nuclear disruptions cited by some advocates: 'Of the hundreds of comments filed in response to the DOE NOPR, only a handful purported to provide substantive evidence in support of the proposal. In contrast, an overwhelming majority of initial comments agree that the DOE NOPR fails to substantiate its assertions of an immediate reliability or resiliency need related to the retirement of merchant coal-fired and nuclear generation.'

Grid operators filed comments refuting claims that the potential retirement of coal and nuclear plants which could not compete for economically present immediate or near-term challenges to grid management, even as a coal CEO criticism targeted federal decisions: 'Even the RTOs and ISOs themselves filed comments opposing the DOE NOPR, noting that the proposed cost-of-service payments to preferred generation would disrupt the competitive markets and are neither warranted nor justified.... Most notably, this includes PJM Interconnection, ... the RTO in which most of the units potentially eligible for payments under the DOE NOPR are located. PJM states that its region 'unquestionably is reliable, and its competitive markets have for years secured commitments from capacity resources that well exceed the target reserve margin established to meet [North American Electric Reliability Corp.] requirements.' And PJM analysis has confirmed that the region's generation portfolio is not only reliable, but also resilient.'

The need for NOPR Beneficiaries to offer alternative proposals reflects the weakness of DOE'srule as drafted, but their options for propping up uneconomic power plants are no better, practically or legally: 'Plans put forward by supporters of the power plant bailout 'acknowledge, at least implicitly, that the preferential payment structure proposed in the DOE NOPR is unclear, unworkable, or both. However, the alternatives offered by the NOPR Beneficiaries, are equally flawed both substantively and procedurally, extending well beyond the scope of the DOE NOPR.'

Citing one example, the energy groups note that the detailed plan put forward by utility FirstEnergy Service Co. would provide preferential payments far more costly than those now provided to individual power plants needed for immediate reasons (and given a 'reliability must run' contract, or RMR): 'Compensation provided under [FirstEnergy's proposal] would be significantly expanded beyond RMR precedent, going so far as to include bailing [a qualifying] unit out of debt based on an unsupported assertion that revenues are needed to ensure long-term operation.'

Calling the action FERC would be required to take in adopting the DOE proposal 'unprecedented,' the energy industry associations reiterate their opposition: 'While the undersigned support the goals of a reliable and resilient grid, adoption of ill-considered discriminatory payments contemplated in the DOE NOPR is not supportable - or even appropriate - from a legal or policy perspective.

About ACORE

The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) is a national non-profit organization leading the transition to a renewable energy economy. With hundreds of member companies from across the spectrum of renewable energy technologies, consumers and investors, ACORE is uniquely positioned to promote the policies and financial structures essential to growth in the renewable energy sector. Our annual forums in Washington, D.C., New York and San Franciscoset the industry standard in providing important venues for key leaders to meet, discuss recent developments, and hear the latest from senior government officials and seasoned experts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Electricity Rate Overhaul proposes a fixed fee and lower per-kWh rates to boost electrification, renewables, and grid reliability, while CPUC weighs impacts on conservation, low-income customers, and time-of-use pricing across the state.

Key Points

A proposal to add fixed fees and cut per-kWh prices to drive electrification, support renewables, and balance grid costs.

✅ Fixed monthly fee plus lower volumetric per-kWh charges

✅ Aims to accelerate EVs, heat pumps, and building electrification

✅ CPUC review weighs equity, conservation, and grid reliability

California is contemplating a significant overhaul to its electricity rate structure that could bring major changes to electric bills statewide, a move that has ignited debate among environmentalists and politicians alike. The proposed modifications, spearheaded by the California Energy Commission (CEC), would introduce a fixed fee on electric bills and lower the rate per kilowatt-hour (kWh) used.

Motivations for the Change

Proponents of the plan argue that it would incentivize Californians to transition to electric appliances and vehicles, a critical aspect of the state's ambitious climate goals. They reason that a lower per-unit cost would make electricity a more attractive option for applications like home heating and transportation, which are currently dominated by natural gas and gasoline. Additionally, they believe the plan would spur investment in renewable energy sources and distributed generation, ultimately leading to a cleaner electricity grid.

California has some of the most ambitious climate goals in the country, aiming to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The transportation sector is the state's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and electrification is considered a key strategy for reducing emissions. A 2021 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found that electrifying all California vehicles and buildings could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% compared to 2020 levels.

Concerns and Potential Impacts

Opponents of the proposal, including some consumer rights groups, express apprehensions that it would discourage conservation efforts. They argue that with a lower per-kWh cost, Californians would have less motivation to reduce their electricity consumption. Additionally, they raise concerns that the income-based fixed charges could disproportionately burden low-income households, who may struggle to afford the base charge regardless of their overall electricity consumption.

A recent study by the CEC suggests that the impact on most Californians would be negligible, even as regulators face calls for action over soaring bills from ratepayers across the state. The report predicts that the average household's electricity bill would change by less than $5 per month under the proposed system. However, some critics argue that this study may not fully account for the potential behavioral changes that could result from the new rate structure.

Similar Initiatives and National Implications

California is not the only state exploring changes to its electricity rates to promote clean energy. Hawaii and New York have also implemented similar programs to encourage consumers to use electricity during off-peak hours. These time-varying rates, also known as time-of-use rates, can help reduce strain on the electricity grid during peak demand periods.

The California proposal has garnered national attention as other states grapple with similar challenges in balancing clean energy goals with affordability concerns amid soaring electricity prices in California and beyond. The outcome of this debate could have significant implications for the broader effort to decarbonize the U.S. power sector.

The Road Ahead

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is reviewing the proposal and anticipates making a decision later this year, with a potential income-based flat-fee structure under consideration. The CPUC will likely consider the plan's potential benefits and drawbacks, including its impact on greenhouse gas emissions, electricity costs for consumers, and the overall reliability of the grid, even as some lawmakers seek to overturn income-based charges in the legislature.

The decision on California's electricity rates is merely one piece of the puzzle in the fight against climate change. However, it is a significant one, with the potential to shape the state's energy landscape for years to come, including the future of residential rooftop solar markets and investments.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BCER Renewable Energy Permitting streamlines single-window approvals for wind, solar, and transmission projects in BC, cutting red tape, aligning with CleanBC, and accelerating investment, Indigenous partnerships, and low-carbon infrastructure growth provincewide.

Key Points

BC's single-window framework consolidates approvals for wind, solar, and transmission to accelerate energy projects.

✅ Single-window permits via BC Energy Regulator (BCER)

✅ Covers wind, solar, and high-voltage transmission lines

✅ Aligns with CleanBC, supports Indigenous partnerships

In a decisive move to bolster clean energy initiatives, the government of British Columbia (B.C.) has announced plans to overhaul the regulatory framework governing renewable energy projects. This initiative aims to expedite the development of wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources, positioning B.C. as a leader in sustainable energy production.

Transitioning Regulatory Authority to the BC Energy Regulator (BCER)

Central to this strategy is the proposed legislation, set to be introduced in spring 2025, which will transfer the permitting and regulatory oversight of renewable energy projects, aligning with offshore wind regulation plans at the federal level, from multiple agencies to the BC Energy Regulator (BCER). This transition is designed to create a "single-window" permitting process, simplifying approvals and reducing bureaucratic delays for developers.

Expanding BCER's Mandate

Historically known as the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission, the BCER's mandate has evolved to encompass a broader range of energy projects. The upcoming legislation will empower the BCER to oversee renewable energy projects, including wind and solar, as well as high-voltage transmission lines like the North Coast Transmission Line (NCTL), in step with renewable transmission planning efforts elsewhere in North America. This expansion aims to streamline the regulatory process, providing developers with a single point of contact throughout the project lifecycle.

Economic and Environmental Implications

The restructuring is expected to unlock significant economic opportunities. Projections suggest that the streamlined process could attract between $5 billion and $6 billion in private investment and complement recent federal grid modernization funding initiatives, generating employment opportunities and fostering economic growth. Moreover, by facilitating the rapid deployment of renewable energy projects, B.C. aims to enhance its clean energy capacity, contributing to global sustainability goals.

Strengthening Partnerships with Indigenous Communities

A pivotal aspect of this initiative is the emphasis on collaboration with Indigenous communities. The government has highlighted the importance of engaging First Nations in the development process, ensuring that projects are not only environmentally sustainable but also socially responsible. This approach seeks to honor Indigenous rights and knowledge, fostering partnerships that benefit all stakeholders.

Supporting Infrastructure Development

The acceleration of renewable energy projects necessitates corresponding infrastructure enhancements. The NCTL, for instance, is crucial for meeting the increased electricity demand from sectors such as mining, port electrification, and hydrogen production, and for addressing regional grid constraints that limit renewable integration. By improving the transmission infrastructure, B.C. aims to support the growing energy needs of these industries while promoting clean energy solutions.

Aligning with CleanBC Objectives

This regulatory overhaul aligns seamlessly with B.C.'s CleanBC initiative, which sets ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting energy efficiency, and supports Canada's goal of zero-emissions electricity by 2035 under active consideration. By removing regulatory barriers and expediting project approvals, the government aims to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy, positioning B.C. as a hub for clean energy innovation.

Addressing Potential Challenges

While the initiative has been lauded for its potential, experts caution that careful consideration must be given to environmental assessments and Indigenous consultation processes, as well as to lessons from Alberta's solar expansion challenges on land use and grid impacts. Ensuring that projects meet environmental standards and respect Indigenous rights is crucial for the long-term success and acceptance of renewable energy developments.

The proposed changes mark a significant shift in B.C.'s approach to energy development, reflecting a commitment to sustainability and economic growth. As the legislation moves through the legislative process, stakeholders across the energy sector are closely monitoring developments, particularly as Alberta ends its renewables moratorium and resumes project approvals across the Prairies, anticipating a more efficient and transparent regulatory environment that supports the rapid expansion of renewable energy projects.

B.C.'s plan to streamline the regulatory process for clean energy projects represents a bold step toward a sustainable and prosperous energy future. By consolidating regulatory authority under the BCER, fostering Indigenous partnerships, and aligning with broader environmental objectives, the province is setting a precedent for effective governance in the transition to renewable energy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News