Coal coalition targets congressional Democrats

Alberta Capacity Market Overhaul faces scrutiny over electricity costs, reliability targets, investor certainty, and AESO design, as UCP reviews NDP reforms, renewables integration, and deregulated energy-only alternatives impacting generators, ratepayers, and future power price volatility.

Key Points

A shift paying generators for capacity and energy to improve reliability; critics warn of higher electricity costs.

✅ UCP reviewing NDP plan and subsidies amid market uncertainty

✅ AESO cites reliability needs as coal retires, renewables grow

✅ Critics predict overprocurement and premature launch cost spikes

Jason Kenney's government is facing renewed pressure to cancel a massive overhaul of Alberta's power market that one player says will needlessly spike costs by hundreds of millions of dollars, amid an electricity sector in profound change today.

Nick Clark, who owns the Calgary-based electricity retailer Spot Power, has sent the Alberta government an open letter urging it to walk away from the electricity market changes proposed by the former NDP government.

"How can you encourage new industry to open up when one of their raw material costs will increase so dramatically?" Clark said. "The capacity market will add more costs to the consumer and it will be a spiral downwards."

But NDP Leader Rachel Notley, whose government ushered in the changes, said fears over dramatic cost increases are unfounded.

"There are some players within the current electricity regime who have a vested interest in maintaining the current situation," Notley said

Kenney's UCP vowed during the recent election to review the current and proposed electricity market options, as the electricity market heads for a reshuffle, with plans to report on its findings within 90 days.

The party also promised to scrap subsidies for renewable power, while ensuring "a market-based electricity system" that emphasizes competition in Alberta's electricity market for consumers.

The New Democrats had opted to scrap the current deregulated power market — in place since the Klein era — after phasing out coal-fired generation and ushering in new renewable power as part of changes in how Alberta produces and pays for electricity under their climate change strategy.

The Alberta Electric System Operator, which oversees the grid, says the province will need new sources of electricity to replace shuttered coal plants and backstop wind and solar generators, while meeting new consumer demand.

After consulting with power companies and investors, the AESO concluded in late 2016 the electricity market couldn't attract enough investment to build the needed power generation under the current model.

The AESO said at the time investors were concerned their revenues would be uncertain once new plants are running. It recommended what's known as a capacity market, which compensates power generators for having the ability to produce electricity, even when they're not producing it.

In other words, producers would collect revenue for selling electricity into the grid and, separately, for having the capacity to produce power as a backstop, ensuring the lights stay on. Power generators would use this second source of income to help cover plant construction costs.

Clark said the complex system introduces unnecessary costs, which he believes would hurt consumers in the end. He said what's preventing investment in the power market is uncertainty over how the market will be structured in the future.

"What investors need to see in this market is price certainty, regulatory ease, and where the money they're putting into the marketplace is not at risk," he said.

"They can risk their own money, but if in fact the government comes in and changes the policy as it was doing, then money stayed away from the province."

Notley said a capacity market would not increase power bills but would avoid big price swings, with protections like a consumer price cap on power bills also debated, while bringing greener sources of energy into Alberta's grid.

"Moving back to the [deregulated] energy-only market would make a lot of money for a few people, and put consumers, both industrial and residential, at great risk."

Clark disagrees, citing Enmax's recent submissions to the Alberta Utilities Commission, in which the utility argues the proposed design of the capacity market is flawed.

In its submissions to the commission, which is considering the future of Alberta's power market, Enmax says the proposed system would overestimate the amount of generation capacity the province will need in the future. It says the calculation could result in Alberta procuring too much capacity.

The City of Calgary-owned utility says this could drive up costs by anywhere from $147 million to $849 million a year. It says a more conservative calculation of future electricity demand could avoid the extra expense.

An analysis by a Calgary energy consulting firm suggests a different feature of the proposed power market overhaul could also lead to a massive spike in costs.

EDC Associates, hired by the Consumers' Coalition of Alberta, argues the proposal to launch the new system in November 2021 may be premature, because it could bring in additional supplies of electricity before they're needed.

The consultant's report, also filed with the Alberta Utilities Commission, estimates the early launch date could require customers to pay 40 per cent more for electricity amid rising electricity prices in the province — potentially an extra $1.4 billion — in 2021/22.

"The target implementation date is politically driven by the previous government," said Duane Reid-Carlson, president of EDC Associates.

Reid-Carlson recommends delaying the launch date by several years and making another tweak: reducing the proposed target for system reliability, which would scale back the amount of power generation needed to backstop renewable sources.

"You could get a result in the capacity market that would give a similar cost to consumers that the [deregulated] energy-only market design would have done otherwise," he said.

"You could have a better risk profile associated with the capacity market that would serve consumers better through lower cost, lower price volatility, and it would serve generators better by giving them better access to capital at lower costs."

The UCP government did not respond to a request for comment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hinkley Point C delays highlight EDF cost overruns, energy security risks, and wholesale power prices, complicating UK net zero plans, Sizewell C financing, and small modular reactor adoption across the grid.

Key Points

Delays at EDF's 3.2GW Hinkley Point C push operations to 2031, lift costs to £46bn, and risk pricier UK electricity.

✅ First unit may slip to 2031; second unit date unclear.

✅ LSEG sees 6% wholesale price impact in 2029-2032.

✅ Sizewell C replicates design; SMR contracts expected soon.

Vincent de Rivaz, former CEO of EDF, confidently announced in 2016 the commencement of the UK's first nuclear power station since the 1990s, Hinkley Point C. However, despite milestones such as the reactor roof installation, recent developments have belied this optimism. The French state-owned utility EDF recently disclosed further delays and cost overruns for the 3.2 gigawatt plant in Somerset.

These complications at Hinkley Point C, which is expected to power 6 million homes, have sparked new concerns about the UK's energy strategy and its ambition to decarbonize the grid by 2050.

The UK government's plan to achieve net zero by 2050 includes a significant role for nuclear energy, reflecting analyses that net-zero may not be possible without nuclear and aiming to increase capacity from the current 5.88GW to 24GW by mid-century.

Simon Virley, head of energy at KPMG in the UK, stressed the importance of nuclear energy in transitioning to a net zero power system, echoing industry calls for multiple new stations to meet climate goals. He pointed out that failing to build the necessary capacity could lead to increased reliance on gas.

Hinkley Point C is envisioned as the pioneer in a new wave of nuclear plants intended to augment and replace Britain's existing nuclear fleet, jointly managed by EDF and Centrica. Nuclear power contributed about 14 percent of the UK's electricity in 2022, even as Europe is losing nuclear power across the continent. However, with the planned closure of four out of five plants by March 2028 and rising electricity demand, there is concern about potential power price increases.

Rob Gross, director of the UK Energy Research Centre, emphasized the link between energy security and affordability, highlighting the risk of high electricity prices if reliance on expensive gas increases.

The first 1.6GW reactor at Hinkley Point C, initially set for operation in 2027, may now face delays until 2031, even after first reactor installation milestones were reported. The in-service date for the second unit remains uncertain, with project costs possibly reaching £46bn.

LSEG analysts predict that these delays could increase wholesale power prices by up to 6 percent between 2029 and 2032, assuming the second unit becomes operational in 2033.

Martin Young, an analyst at Investec, warned of the price implications of removing a large power station from the supply side.

In response to these delays, EDF is exploring the extension of its four oldest plants. Jerry Haller, EDF’s former decommissioning director, had previously expressed skepticism about extending the life of the advanced gas-cooled reactor fleet, but EDF has since indicated more positive inspection results. The company had already decided to keep the Heysham 1 and Hartlepool plants operational until at least 2026.

Nevertheless, the issues at Hinkley Point C raise doubts about the UK's ability to meet its 2050 nuclear build target of 24GW.

Previous delays at Hinkley were attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, but EDF now cites engineering problems, similar to those experienced at other European power stations using the same technology.

The next major UK nuclear project, Sizewell C in Suffolk, will replicate Hinkley Point C's design, aligning with the UK's green industrial revolution agenda. EDF and the UK government are currently seeking external investment for the £20bn project.

Compared with Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C's financing model involves exposing billpayers to some risk of cost overruns. This, coupled with EDF's track record, could affect investor confidence.

Additionally, the UK government is supporting the development of small modular reactors, while China's nuclear program continues on a steady track, with contracts expected to be awarded later this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EU Electricity Market Reform advances two-way CfDs, PPAs, and fixed-price tariffs to cut volatility, support renewables and nuclear, stabilize investor revenues, and protect consumers from price spikes across wholesale power markets.

Key Points

An EU plan expanding two-way CfDs, PPAs, and fixed-price contracts to curb price swings and support low-carbon power.

✅ Two-way CfDs return excess revenues to consumers

✅ Boosts PPAs and fixed-price retail options

✅ Targets renewables, nuclear; limits fossil exposure

The European Union wants to expand the use of contracts that pay power plants a fixed price for electricity, a draft proposal showed, as part of an electricity market revamp to shield European consumers from big price swings.

The European Commission pledged last year to reform the EU's electricity market rules, after record-high gas prices, caused by cuts to Russian flows, sent power prices soaring, prompting debates over gas price cap strategies in response.

A draft of the EU executive's proposal, seen by Reuters on Tuesday and due to be published on Mar. 16, steered clear of the deep redesign of the electricity market that some member states have called for, even as nine EU countries opposed sweeping reforms as a fix earlier in the crisis, suggesting instead limited changes to nudge countries towards more predictable, fixed-price power contracts.

If EU countries want to support new investments in wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower and nuclear electricity, for example - a point over which France and Germany have wrestled - they should use a two-way contract for difference (CfD) or an equivalent contract, the draft said.

The aim is to provide a stable revenue stream to investors, and help make consumers' energy bills less volatile, even though rolling back electricity prices is tougher than it appears. Restricting this support to renewable and low-carbon electricity also aims to speed up Europe's shift away from fossil fuels.

Two-way CfDs offer generators a fixed "strike price" for their electricity, regardless of the price in short-term energy markets. If the market price is above the CfD strike price, then the extra revenue the generator receives should be handed out to final electricity consumers, the draft EU document said.

Countries should also make it easier for power buyers to sign power purchase agreements (PPA) - another type of long-term contract to directly buy electricity from a generator.

Governments should also make sure consumers have access to fixed-price electricity contracts - echoing France's new electricity pricing scheme to reassure Brussels - giving them the option to avoid a contract that would expose them to volatile prices swings in energy markets, the draft said.

If European energy prices were to spike to extreme levels again, the Commission suggested allowing national governments to temporarily intervene to fix prices while weighing emergency measures to limit prices where needed, and offer consumers and small businesses a share of their electricity at a lower price.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California income-based utility charges face bipartisan pushback as the PUC weighs fixed fees for PG&E, SDG&E, and Southern California Edison, reshaping rate design, electricity affordability, energy equity, and privacy amid proposed per-kWh reductions.

Key Points

PUC-approved fixed fees tied to household income for PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE, offset by lower per-kWh rates.

✅ Proposed fixed fees: $51 SCE, $73.31 SDG&E, $50.92 PG&E

✅ Critics warn admin, privacy, legal risks and higher bills for savers

✅ Backers say lower-income pay less; kWh rates cut ~33% in PG&E area

Efforts are being made across California's political landscape to derail a legislative initiative that introduced income-based utility charges for customers of Southern California Edison and other major utilities.

Legislators from both the Democratic and Republican parties have proposed bills aimed at nullifying the 2022 legislation that established a sliding scale for utility charges based on customer income, a decision made in a late-hour session and subsequently endorsed by Governor Gavin Newsom.

The plan, pending final approval from the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) — all of whose current members were appointed by Governor Newsom — would enable utilities like Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, and PG&E to apply new income-based charges as early as this July.

Among the state legislators pushing back against the income-based charge scheme are Democrats Jacqui Irwin and Marc Berman, along with Republicans Janet Nguyen, Kelly Seyarto, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Scott Wilk, Brian Dahle, Shannon Grove, and Roger Niello.

A cadre of specialists, including economist Ahmad Faruqui who has advised all three utilities implicated in the fee proposal, have outlined several concerns regarding the PUC's pending decision.

Faruqui and his colleagues argue that the proposed charges are excessively high in comparison to national standards, reflecting soaring electricity prices across the state, potentially leading to administrative challenges, legal disputes, and negative unintended outcomes, such as penalizing energy-conservative consumers.

Advocates for the income-based fee model, including The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the National Resources Defense Council, argue it would result in higher charges for wealthier consumers and reduced fees for those with lower incomes. They also believe that the utilities plan to decrease per kilowatt-hour rates as part of a broader rate structure review to balance out the new fees.

However, even supporters like TURN and the Natural Resources Defense Council acknowledge that the income-based fee model is not a comprehensive solution to making soaring electricity bills more affordable.

If implemented, California would have the highest income-based utility fees in the country, with averages far surpassing the national average of $11.15, as reported by EQ Research:

• Southern California Edison would charge $51.
• San Diego Gas & Electric would levy $73.31.
• PG&E would set fees at $50.92.

The proposal has raised concerns among state legislators about the additional financial burden on Californians already struggling with high electricity costs.

Critics highlight several practical challenges, including the PUC's task of assessing customers' income levels, a process fraught with privacy concerns, potential errors, and constitutional questions regarding access to tax information.

Economists have pointed out further complications, such as the difficulty in accurately assessing incomes for out-of-state property owners and the variability of customers' incomes over time.

The proposed income-based charges would differ by income bracket within the PG&E service area, for example, with lower-income households facing lower fixed charges and higher-income households facing higher charges, alongside a proposed 33% reduction in electricity rates to help mitigate the fixed charge impact.

Yet, the economists warn that most customers, particularly low-usage customers, could end up paying more, essentially rewarding higher consumption and penalizing efficiency.

This legislative approach, they caution, could inadvertently increase costs for moderate users across all income brackets, a sign of major changes to electric bills that could emerge, challenging the very goals it aims to achieve by promoting energy inefficiency.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

NB Power and Hydro-Québec Electricity Agreements expand clean hydroelectric exports, support Mactaquac dam refurbishment, add grid interconnections, and advance decarbonization, climate goals, reliability, and transmission capacity across Atlantic Canada and U.S. markets through 2040.

Key Points

Deals for hydro exports, Mactaquac upgrades, and new interconnections to improve reliability and cut emissions.

✅ 47 TWh to NB by 2040 over existing transmission lines

✅ HQ expertise to address Mactaquac concrete swelling

✅ Talks on new interconnections for Atlantic and U.S. exports

NB Power and Hydro-Quebec have signed three deals that will see Quebec sell more electricity to New Brunswick and provide help with the refurbishment of the Mactaquac hydroelectric generating station.

Under the first agreement, Hydro-Quebec will export 47 terawatt hours of electricity to New Brunswick between now and 2040 over existing power lines — expanding on an agreement in place since 2012 and on related regional agreements such as the Churchill Falls deal in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The second deal will see Hydro-Quebec share expertise for part of the refurbishment of the Mactaquac dam to extend the useful life of the generating station until at least 2068, when the 670 megawatt facility on the St. John River will be 100 years old.

Since the 1980s, concrete portions of the facility have been affected by a chemical reaction that causes the concrete to swell and crack.

Hydro-Quebec has been dealing with the same problem, and has developed expertise in addressing the issue.

“This is why we have signed a technical collaboration agreement between Hydro-Quebec and us for part of the refurbishment of the Mactaquac generating station,” NB Power president Gaetan Thomas said Friday.

Eric Martel, CEO of Hydro-Quebec, said hydroelectric plants provide long-term clean power that’s important in the fight against climate change as the province has ruled out nuclear power for now.

“We understand how important it is to ensure the long term sustainability of these facilities and we are happy to share the expertise that Hydro-Quebec has acquired over the years,” Martel said.

The refurbishment of the Mactaquac generating station is expected to cost between $2.9 billion and $3.5 billion. Once the work begins, each of the facility’s six generators will have to be taken offline for months at a time, and Thomas said that’s where the increased power from Quebec, supported by Hydro-Quebec's capacity expansion in recent years, will come into use.

He expects the power could cost about $100 million per year but will be much cheaper than other sources.

The third agreement calls for talks to begin for the construction of additional power connections between Quebec and New Brunswick to increase exports to Atlantic Canada and the United States, where transmission constraints have limited incremental deliveries in recent years.

“Building new interconnections and allowing for increased power transfer between our systems could be mutually beneficial, even as historic tensions in Newfoundland and Labrador linger. More than ever, we are looking to the future,” Martel said.

“Partnering will permit us to seize new business opportunities together and pool our effort to support de-carbonization, including Hydro-Quebec's non-fossil strategy that is now underway, and fight against climate change, both here and in our neighbourhood market,” he said. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News