Western administrator approves RTO membership

AEMC Storage Charging Rules spark industry backlash as Tesla, Snowy Hydro, and investors warn transmission charges on batteries and pumped hydro could deter grid-scale storage, distort the National Electricity Market, and slow decarbonisation.

Key Points

AEMC Storage Charging Rules are proposals to bill grid storage for network use, shaping costs and investment.

✅ Charges apply when batteries draw power; double-charging concerns.

✅ Tesla and Snowy Hydro warn of reduced viability and delays.

✅ AEMO recommends exemptions; investors seek certainty.

Tesla, Snowy Hydro and other big suppliers of storage capacity on Australia’s main electricity grid warn proposed rule changes amount to a tax on their operations that will deter investors and slow the decarbonisation of the industry.

The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) will release its final decision this Thursday on new rules for integrating batteries, pumped hydro and other forms of storage.

The AEMC’s draft decision, released in July, angered many firms because it proposed charging storage providers for drawing power, ignoring a recommendation by the Australian Electricity Market Operator (AEMO) that they be exempt.

Battery maker Tesla, which has supplied some of the largest storage to the National Electricity Market, said in a submission that the charges would “kill the commercial viability of all grid storage projects, causing inefficient investment in alternative network”, with consumers paying higher costs.

Snowy Hydro, which is building the giant Snowy 2 pumped storage project and already operates a smaller one, said in its submission the proposed changes if implemented would jeopardise investment.

“This is a major policy change, amounting to a tax on infrastructure critical to achieving a renewable future,” Snowy Hydro said.

AEMO itself argued it was important storage providers were not “disincentivised from connecting to the transmission network, as they generally provide a net benefit to the power system by charging at periods of low demand”.

Australia’s electricity grid faces economic and engineering challenges, similar to Ontario's storage push as it adjusts to the arrival of lower cost and also lower carbon alternatives to fossil fuels.

While rule changes are necessary to account for operators that can both draw from and supply power, how they are implemented can have long-lasting effects on the technologies that get encouraged or repelled, including control of EV charging issues, independent experts say.

“It doesn’t have to be this way,” said Bruce Mountain, director of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre. “In Britain, where the UK grid transformation is underway, the regulator dealing with the same issues has said that storage devices don’t pay the system charges when they withdraw electricity from the grid,” he said.

The prospect that storage operators will have to pay transmission charges could “drastically” affect their profitability since their business models rely on the difference between the price their pay for power and how much they can sell it for. Gas generators and network monopolies would benefit from the change, Mountain said.

Sign up to receive an email with the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning

An AEMC spokesperson said the commission had consulted widely, including from those who objected to the payment for transmission access.

“The market is moving towards a future that will be increasingly reliant on energy storage to firm up the growing volume of renewable energy and deliver on the increasing need for critical system security services, with examples such as EVs supporting grid stability in California as the ageing fleet of thermal generators retire,” the spokesperson said, declining to elaborate on the final ruling before it is published.

“The regulatory framework needs to facilitate this transition as the energy sector continues to decarbonise,” the official said.

AusNet, which operates the Victorian energy transmission grid, said that while “technological neutrality is paramount for battery and hybrid unit connections to both the distribution and transmission networks,” it did not back charging storage access to networks in all cases.

“[Ausnet] supports a clear exemptions framework for energy storage providers,” a spokesperson said. “We recommend that batteries and other hybrid facilities should have transmission use of system charges waived if they provide a net benefit to network customers.”

We are not aware of anyone that supports the charging storage access to networks in all circumstances.

“Batteries and hybrid facilities that consume energy from the network should be provided no preferential treatment relative to other customers and generators.”

Jonathan Upson, a principal at Strategic Renewable Consulting, though, said the AEMC wants electricity flowing through batteries to be taxed twice to pay network charges – once when the electricity charges the battery and then again when the same electricity is sent out by the battery an hour or two later but this time with customers paying.

“The AEMC’s draft decision has the identical rationale for eliminating franking credits on all dividends, resulting in double taxing of company profits,” he said.

Christiaan Zuur, director of energy transformation at the Clean Energy Council, said that while much of AEMC’s draft proposal was constructive, “those benefits are either nullified or maybe even outweighed” by uncertainty over charges.

“Risk perception” will be important since potential newcomers won’t be sure of what charges they will pay to connect to the grid and existing operators could have their connection agreements reopened, Zuur said.

“Investors focus on the potential risk. It does factor through to the integral costs for projects,” he said.

The outcome of new charges may prompt more people to put batteries on their premises and draw power from their own solar panels, Mountain said, with rising EV adoption introducing new grid challenges, cutting their reliance on a centralised network.

“Ironically, it encourages customers to depend less and less on the grid,” he said. “It’s almost like the capture of the dominant interests playing out over time at their own expense.”

Separately, the latest edition of the Clean Energy Council Confidence Index shows leadership by state governments is helping to shore up investor appetite for investing in renewable energy amid 2021 electricity lessons even with higher 2030 emissions reduction goals from the federal government.

Overall, investor confidence increased by a point in the last six months – from 6.3 to 7.3 out of 10 – following strong commitments and policy development from state governments, particularly on the east coast, the council said.

“The results of this latest survey illustrate the economic value in policy that lowers the emissions footprint of our electricity generation, supporting regional centres and creating jobs. Investors recognise the opportunities created by limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees,” said council chief executive Kane Thornton.

Among the states, NSW, Victoria and Queensland led in terms of positive investor sentiment.

Correction: this article was amended on 30 November. An earlier version stated Ausnet supported charging storage for network access. A spokesperson said it backed a waiver on charges if certain conditions are met.        

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada Tariffs on U.S. Energy and Minerals signal retaliatory tariffs amid trade tensions, targeting energy exports and critical minerals, reflecting sovereignty concerns and shifting consumer behavior, reduced U.S. purchases, and demand for Canadian-made goods.

Key Points

They are proposed retaliatory tariffs on energy exports and critical minerals to counter U.S. trade pressures.

✅ 75% support tariffs; 70% back dollar-for-dollar retaliation

✅ Consumer shift: fewer U.S. purchases, more Canadian-made goods

✅ Concerns over sovereignty and U.S. trade tactics intensify

A recent survey has revealed that a significant majority of Canadians—approximately 75%—support the implementation of tariffs on energy exports and critical minerals in response to electricity exports at risk amid trade tensions with the United States. This finding underscores the nation's readiness to adopt assertive measures to protect its economic interests amid escalating trade disputes.​

Background on Trade Tensions

The trade relationship between Canada and the United States has experienced fluctuations in recent years, with both nations navigating complex issues related to tariffs and energy tariffs and trade tensions as well as trade agreements and economic policies. The introduction of tariffs has been a contentious strategy, often leading to reciprocal measures and impacting various sectors of the economy.​

Public Sentiment Towards Retaliatory Tariffs

The survey, conducted by Leger between February 14 and 17, 2025, sampled 1,500 Canadians and found that 70% favored implementing dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. Notably, 45% of respondents were strongly in favor, while 25% were somewhat in favor. This strong support reflects widespread dissatisfaction with U.S. trade policies and growing support for Canadian energy projects among voters, alongside a collective sentiment favoring decisive action. ​

Concerns Over U.S. Economic Strategies

The survey also highlighted that 81% of Canadians are apprehensive about potential U.S. economic tactics aimed at drawing Canada into a closer political union. These concerns are fueled by statements from U.S. President Donald Trump, who has suggested annexation and employed tariffs that could spike NY energy prices to influence Canadian sovereignty. Such sentiments have heightened fears about the erosion of Canada's political autonomy under economic duress. ​

Impact on Consumer Behavior

In response to these trade tensions, including reports that Ford threatened to cut U.S. electricity exports, many Canadians have adjusted their purchasing habits. The survey indicated that 63% of respondents are buying fewer American products in stores, and 62% are reducing online purchases from U.S. retailers. Specific declines include a 52% reduction in Amazon purchases, a 50% drop in fast-food consumption from American chains, and a 43% decrease in spending at U.S.-based retail stores. Additionally, 30% of Canadians have canceled planned trips to the United States, while 68% have increased their purchases of Canadian-made products. These shifts demonstrate a tangible impact on consumer behavior driven by nationalistic sentiments and support for retaliatory measures. ​

Economic and Political Implications

The widespread support for retaliatory tariffs and the corresponding changes in consumer behavior have significant economic and political implications. Economically, while tariffs can serve as a tool for asserting national interests, they also risk triggering trade wars that can harm various sectors, including agriculture, manufacturing, and technology, with experts cautioning against cutting Quebec's energy exports in response. Politically, the situation presents a challenge for Canadian leadership to balance assertiveness in defending national interests with the necessity of maintaining a stable and mutually beneficial relationship with the U.S., Canada's largest trading partner.​

As Canada approaches its federal elections, trade policy is emerging as a pivotal issue. Voters are keenly interested in how political parties propose to navigate the complexities of international trade, particularly with the United States and how a potential U.S. administration's stance, such as Biden's approach to the energy sector could shape outcomes. The electorate's strong stance on retaliatory tariffs may influence party platforms and campaign strategies, emphasizing the need for clear and effective policies that address both the immediate concerns of trade disputes and the long-term goal of sustaining positive international relations.​

The survey results reflect a nation deeply engaged with its trade dynamics and protective of its sovereignty. While support for retaliatory tariffs is robust, it is essential for policymakers to carefully consider the broader consequences of such actions. Striking a balance between defending national interests and fostering constructive international relationships will be crucial as Canada navigates these complex trade challenges in the coming years.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Western Lithium Supply Localization is accelerating as EV battery makers diversify from China, boosting lithium hydroxide sourcing in North America and Europe, amid Covid-19 disruptions and rising prices, with geothermal brines and local processing.

Key Points

An industry shift to source lithium and processing near EV hubs, reducing China reliance and supply chain risk.

✅ EV makers seek North American and European lithium hydroxide

✅ Prices rise amid Covid-19 and logistics constraints

✅ New extraction: geothermal and oilfield brine projects

The global outbreak of coronavirus will accelerate efforts by western carmakers to localise supplies of lithium for electric car batteries, according to US producer Livent.

The industry was keen to diversify away from China, which produces the bulk of the world’s lithium, a critical material for lithium-ion batteries, said Paul Graves, Livent’s chief executive.

“It’s a conversation that’s starting to happen that was not happening even six months ago,” especially in the US, the former Goldman Sachs banker added.

China produced about 79 per cent of the lithium hydroxide used in electric car batteries last year, according to consultancy CRU, a supply chain that has been disrupted by the virus outbreak and EV shortages in some markets.

Prices for lithium hydroxide rose 3.1 per cent last month, their first increase since May 2018, according to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, due to the impact of the Covid-19 bug.

Chinese lithium producer Ganfeng Lithium, which supplies major carmakers from Tesla to Volkswagen, said it had raised prices by less than 10 per cent, due to higher production costs and logistical difficulties.

“We can get lithium from lots of places . . . is that really something we’re prepared to rely upon?” Mr Graves said. “People are going to relook at supply chains, including battery recycling initiatives that enhance resilience, and relook at their integrity . . . and they’re going to say is there something we need to do to change our supply chains to make them more shockproof?”

General Motors last week said it was looking to source battery minerals such as lithium and nickel from North America for its new range of electric cars that will use cells made in Ohio by South Korea’s LG Chem.

“Some of these critical minerals could be challenging to obtain; it’s not just cobalt you need to be concerned about but also battery-grade nickel and lithium as well,” said Andy Oury, a lead engineer for batteries at GM. “We’re doing all of this with an eye to sourcing as much of the raw material from North America as possible.”

However, George Heppel, an analyst at CRU, warned it would be difficult to compete with China on costs. “China is always going to be the most competitive place to buy battery raw materials. That’s not likely to change anytime soon,” he said.

Livent, which extracts lithium from brines in northern Argentina, is looking at extracting the mineral from geothermal resources in the US and also wants to build a processing plant in Europe.

The Philadelphia-based company is also working with Canadian start-up E3 Metals to extract lithium from brines in Alberta's oil and gasfields for new projects in Canada.

“We’ll look at doing more in the US and more in Europe,” said Mr Graves, underscoring evolving Canada-U.S. collaboration across EV supply chains.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

UK Energy Price Guarantee Cost forecasts from Cornwall Insight suggest an £89bn bill, tied to wholesale gas prices, OBR projections, and fiscal policy, to shield households amid the cost of living crisis.

Key Points

It is the projected government spend to cap household bills, driven by wholesale gas prices and OBR market forecasts.

✅ Base case: £89bn over two years, per Cornwall Insight

✅ Range: £72bn to £140bn, volatile wholesale gas costs

✅ Excludes 6-month business support estimated at £22bn-£48bn

Liz Truss’s intervention to freeze energy prices for households for two years is expected to cost the government £89bn, according to the first major costing of the policy by the sector’s leading consultancy.

The analysis from Cornwall Insight, seen exclusively by the Guardian, shows the prime minister’s plan to tackle the cost of living crisis could cost as much as £140bn in a worst-case scenario.

Truss announced in early September that the average annual bill for a typical household would be capped at £2,500 to protect consumers from the intensifying cost of living crisis amid high winter energy costs and a scheduled 80% rise in the cap to £3,549.

The ultimate cost of the policy is uncertain as it is highly dependent on the wholesale cost of gas, including UK natural gas prices which have soared since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine put a squeeze on already-volatile international markets. Ballpark projections had put the cost anywhere from £100bn to £150bn.

The Office for Budget Responsibility is expected to give its forecast for the bill when it provides its independent assessment of Kwasi Kwarteng’s medium-term fiscal plan, which the chancellor said on Tuesday would still happen on 23 November despite previous reports that it would be brought forward.

Cornwall Insight analysed projections of wholesale market moves to cost the intervention. In its base case scenario, analysts expect the policy to cost £89bn. That assumes the cost of supporting each household would be just over £1,000 in the first year, and about £2,000 in the second year.

The study’s authors said the wholesale price of gas would be influenced by energy demand, the severity of weather, “geo-political uncertainty” and prices for liquified natural gas as Europe seeks to refill storage facilities, which countries have rushed to fill up this winter but which could be relatively empty by next spring.

In the best-case outcome, the policy would cost £72bn, with some projections pointing to a 16% decrease in energy bills in April for households, while the “extreme high” outlook would see the government shell out £140bn to protect 29m UK households.

Gas prices are expected to push even higher if the Kremlin decides to completely cut off Russian gas exports into Europe.

Cornwall Insight’s projection does not include a separate six-month initiative to cap costs for companies, charities and public sector organisations, which is forecast to cost £22bn to £48bn.

The consultancy’s chief executive, Gareth Miller, said the £70bn range in its forecasts reflected “a febrile wholesale market continuing to be beset by geopolitical instability, sensitivity to demand, weather and infrastructure resilience”.

He said: “Fortune befriends the bold, but it also favours the prepared. The large uncertainties around commodity markets over the next two years means that the government could get lucky with costs coming out at the low end of the range, but the opposite could also be true.

“In each case, the government may find itself passengers to circumstances outside its control, having made policy that is a hostage to surprises, events and volatile factors. That’s a difficult position to be in.”

Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The government has faced criticism, as some British MPs urge tighter limits on prices, that the policy is effectively a “blank cheque” and is not targeted at the most vulnerable in society.

Concerns over how Truss and Kwarteng intend to fund a series of measures, including the price guarantee, have spooked financial markets.

The EU, which has outlined possible gas price cap strategies in recent proposals, said last week it planned to cap the revenues of low-carbon electricity generators at €180 a megawatt hour, which is less than half current market prices. Truss has so far resisted calls to extend a levy on North Sea oil and gas operators to electricity generators, who have benefited from a link between gas and electricity prices in Britain.

Truss hopes to strike voluntary long-term deals with generators including Centrica and EDF, alongside the government’s Energy Security Bill measures, to bring down wholesale prices.

The Financial Times reported on Tuesday that the government has threatened companies with legislation to cap their revenues if voluntary deals cannot be agreed.

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

Tesla Solar and Powerwall Discount offers a ~10% installation price cut amid PG&E blackouts, helping California homeowners with solar panels, battery storage, and backup power, while supporting renewable energy and resilient Supercharger infrastructure.

Key Points

A ~10% installation discount on Tesla solar panels and Powerwall batteries to boost backup power during PG&E blackouts.

✅ ~10% off installation for solar plus Powerwall

✅ Helps during PG&E shutoffs and wildfire mitigation

✅ Supports resilience, backup power, and EV charging

Pacific Gas & Electric’s (PG&E) shutoff of electric supply to residents in California’s Bay Area has caught the attention of Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who, while highlighting a huge future for Tesla Energy in coming years, has announced that he would be offering a price reduction of approximately 10% for a solar panel and Tesla Powerwall battery installation. The discount will be available to anyone interested in powering their homes with solar energy, not just the 800,000 affected homes in the Bay Area.

After initially tweeting a link to Tesla’s Solar page on Tesla.com, Musk added that he would be offering a “~10% price reduction” in installation price for solar panels and Powerwall batteries for anyone, as California explores EVs for grid stability during emergencies, including those who have lost power in response to PG&E’s power shutoff. The blackout induced by the California-based power company is a part of an effort to reduce the possibility of wildfires. PG&E lines were the cause of multiple fires in the past, so the company is taking every necessary precaution to reduce the probability of its lines causing another fire in the future.

Tesla Solar recently offered a subscription program that would allow homeowners to lease panels for a fraction of the cost. The service is available to both residential and commercial customers, and costs as little as $45 a month in some states, particularly appealing in California where EV sales top 20% recently. The option to lease solar panels carries no long-term contracts that would tie down customers to a lengthy commitment.

Wildfires have always been an issue in California. Currently, fires are ripping through Los Angeles county, presumably caused by the winds of the Autumn season. The effort to reduce the environmental impact of forest fires in the state has been increasingly more prevalent over the years. But 2019 is a different story, underscoring that California may need a much bigger grid to support electrification, considering the previous year was noted as the deadliest wildfire season in California’s history. Over 8,500 fires destroyed over 1.89 million acres of land burned due to fires, causing the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to spend $432 million through the end of August 2018, according to the Associated Press.

In reaction to the news of the power shutoffs, Tesla added words of advice to vehicle affected owners on its app. The company posted a message encouraging drivers to keep their vehicles charged to 100% and highlighted that EVs can power homes for up to three days during outages, in order to prevent interruptions in driving. Those who are driving ICE vehicles are feeling the effects of the blackout too, as gas stations in California’s affected region have begun to shut down. Musk also tweeted that he would be installing Tesla Powerpacks at all Supercharger stations in the affected region, a move that can help ease strain on state power grids during outages, in order to allow owners to charge their vehicles.

In addition to the efforts that Tesla has already put into place, Musk plans to transition all Supercharger stations to solar power as soon as possible. But the sunny climate of California offers residents a great opportunity to move from gas and electric, even as some warn of a looming green car wreck in the state, to a more eco-friendly, sun-powered option. Tesla solar will completely eliminate power blackouts that are used to control wildfires in California.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News