Tohoku foresees reduction in CO2 emissions

Ukraine Electricity Market Price Caps empower the regulator, the National Commission, to set marginal prices on day-ahead, intraday, and balancing markets, stabilize competition, support thermal plants, and sustain the heating season via green tariff obligations.

Key Points

Regulatory limits set by the National Commission to curb price spikes, ensure competition, and secure heat supply.

✅ Sets marginal prices for day-ahead, intraday, balancing markets

✅ Mitigates collusion risks; promotes effective competition

✅ Ensures TPP operation and heat supply during heating season

The Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's parliament, has adopted at first reading a draft law that proposes giving the National Commission for State Regulation of Energy and Public Utilities the right to set marginal prices in the electricity market, amid EU market revamp plans that aim to reshape pricing, until 2023.

A total of 259 MPs voted for the document at a parliament meeting on Tuesday, November 12, amid electricity import pressures that have tested the grid, according to an Ukrinform correspondent.

Bill No. 2233 introducing amendments to the law on the electricity market provides for the legislative regulation of the mechanism for fulfilling special obligations for the purchase of electricity at a "green" tariff, preventing the uncontrolled growth of electricity prices due to the lack of effective competition, including recent price-fixing allegations that have raised concerns, ensuring heat supply to consumers during the heating period by regulating the issue of the functioning of thermal power plants in the new electricity market.

It is proposed to introduce respective amendments to the law of Ukraine on the electricity market, alongside steps toward synchronization with ENTSO-E to enhance system stability.

In particular, the draft law gives the regulator the right for the period until July 1, 2023 to set marginal prices on the day-ahead market, the intraday market and the balancing market for each trade zone, reflecting similar EU fixed-price contract initiatives being discussed, and to decide on the obligation for producers to submit proposals (applications) for the sale of electricity on the day-ahead market.

Lawmakers think that the adoption of the bill and empowering the regulator to set marginal prices in the relevant segments of the electricity market will prevent, even as rolling back prices in Europe remains difficult for policymakers, "an uncontrolled increase in electricity prices due to the lack of effective competition or collusion between market players, as well as regulate the issue of the functioning of thermal power plants during the autumn and winter period, which is a necessary prerequisite for providing heat to consumers during the heating period."

The new model of the electricity market was launched on July 1 as the UK weighs decoupling gas and power prices to shield consumers, in accordance with the provisions of the law on the electricity market, adopted in 2017.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Biofuels vs EV Subsidies examines tradeoffs in decarbonization, greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy deployment, charging infrastructure, energy security, lifecycle emissions, and transportation sector policy to meet climate goals and accelerate sustainable mobility.

Key Points

Policy tradeoffs weighing biofuels and EVs to cut GHGs, boost energy security, and advance clean transportation.

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

California is at the forefront of the transition to a greener economy, driven by its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. As part of its strategy, the state is grappling with the question of whether it should subsidize out-of-state biofuels or in-state electric vehicles (EVs) to meet these goals. Both options come with their own sets of benefits and challenges, and the decision carries significant implications for the state’s environmental, economic, and energy landscapes.

The Case for Biofuels

Biofuels have long been promoted as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. They are made from organic materials such as agricultural crops, algae, and waste, which means they can potentially reduce carbon emissions in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. In the context of California, biofuels—particularly ethanol and biodiesel—are viewed as a way to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is one of the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsidizing out-of-state biofuels can help California reduce its reliance on imported oil while promoting the development of biofuel industries in other states. This approach may have immediate benefits, as biofuels are widely available and can be blended with conventional fuels to lower carbon emissions right away. It also allows the state to diversify its energy sources, improving energy security by reducing dependency on oil imports.

Moreover, biofuels can be produced in many regions across the United States, including rural areas. By subsidizing out-of-state biofuels, California could foster economic development in these regions, creating jobs and stimulating agricultural innovation. This approach could also support farmers who grow the feedstock for biofuel production, boosting the agricultural economy in the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks. The environmental benefits of biofuels are often debated. Critics argue that the production of biofuels—particularly those made from food crops like corn—can contribute to deforestation, water pollution, and increased food prices. Additionally, biofuels are not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, as their production and combustion still release greenhouse gases. When considering whether to subsidize biofuels, California must also account for the full lifecycle emissions associated with their production and use.

The Case for Electric Vehicles

In contrast to biofuels, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a more direct pathway to reducing emissions from transportation. EVs are powered by electricity, and when coupled with renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, they can provide a nearly zero-emission solution for personal and commercial transportation. California has already invested heavily in EV infrastructure, including expanding its network of charging stations and exploring how EVs can support grid stability through vehicle-to-grid approaches, and offering incentives for consumers to purchase EVs.

Subsidizing in-state EVs could stimulate job creation and innovation within California's thriving clean-tech industry, with other states such as New Mexico projecting substantial economic gains from transportation electrification, and the state has already become a hub for electric vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla, Rivian, and several battery manufacturers. Supporting the EV industry could further strengthen California’s position as a global leader in green technology, attracting investment and fostering growth in related sectors such as battery manufacturing, renewable energy, and smart grid technology.

Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are substantial. As the electric grid becomes cleaner with an increasing share of renewable energy, EVs will become even greener, with lower lifecycle emissions than biofuels. By prioritizing EVs, California could further reduce its carbon footprint while also achieving its long-term climate goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

However, there are challenges. EV adoption in California remains a significant undertaking, requiring major investments in infrastructure as they challenge state power grids in the near term, technology, and consumer incentives. The cost of EVs, although decreasing, still remains a barrier for many consumers. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is essential for EV batteries. While renewable energy is expanding, California’s grid is still reliant on fossil fuels to some degree, and in other jurisdictions such as Canada's 2019 electricity mix fossil generation remains significant, meaning that the full emissions benefit of EVs is not realized until the grid is entirely powered by clean energy.

A Balancing Act

The debate between subsidizing out-of-state biofuels and in-state electric vehicles is ultimately a question of how best to allocate California’s resources to meet its climate and economic goals. Biofuels may offer a quicker fix for reducing emissions from existing vehicles, but their long-term benefits are more limited compared to the transformative potential of electric vehicles, even as some analysts warn of policy pitfalls that could complicate the transition.

However, biofuels still have a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy-duty transportation, where electrification may not be as feasible in the near future. Thus, a mixed strategy that includes both subsidies for EVs and biofuels may be the most effective approach.

Ultimately, California’s decision will likely depend on a combination of factors, including technological advancements, 2021 electricity lessons, and the pace of renewable energy deployment, and the state’s ability to balance short-term needs with long-term environmental goals. The road ahead is not easy, but California's leadership in clean energy will be crucial in shaping the nation’s response to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Alberta Utility Rate Rider will add a modest fee to electricity bills and natural gas charges as the AUC recovers outstanding debt from the COVID-19 deferral program via AESO and the Balancing Pool.

Key Points

A temporary surcharge on Alberta power and gas bills to recover unpaid COVID-19 deferral debt, administered by the AUC.

✅ Applies per kWh and per GJ based on consumption

✅ Recovers unpaid balances from 2020-21 bill deferrals

✅ Collected via AESO and the Balancing Pool under AUC oversight

The province says Alberta ratepayers should expect to see an extra fee on their utility bills in the coming months.

That fee is meant to recover the outstanding debt owed to gas and electricity providers resulting from last year's three-month utility deferral program offered to struggling Albertans during the pandemic.

The provincial government announced the utility deferral program in March 2020 then formalized it with legislation, alongside a consumer price cap on power bills that shaped later policy decisions.

The program allowed residential, farm and small commercial customers who used less than 250,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year — or consumed less than 2,500 gigajoules per year — to postpone their bills amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the province, 350,000 customers, or approximately 13 per cent of the natural gas and electricity consumer base, took advantage of the program.

Customers had a year to repay providers what they owed. That deadline ended June 18, 2021.

The Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC), which regulates the utilities sector and natural gas and electricity markets and oversees a rate of last resort framework, said the vast majority of consumers have squared up.

But for those who didn't, provincial legislation dictates that Alberta ratepayers must cover any unpaid debt. The legislation exempts Medicine Hat utility customers for electricity and gas co-operative customers for gas.

"When the program was announced, it was very clear that it was a deferral program and that the monies would need to be paid back," said Geoff Scotton, a spokesperson with the Alberta Utilities Commission.

"Now we're in the situation where the providers, in good faith, who enabled those payment deferrals, need to be made whole. That's really the goal here."

Amount to be determined
Margeaux Maron, a spokesperson for Associate Minister of Natural Gas and Electricity Dale Nally, said based on early estimates, $13 to $16 million of $92 million in deferred payments remain outstanding.

As a result, the province expects the average Albertan will end up paying, unlike jurisdictions offering a lump-sum credit, a fraction of a dollar extra per monthly gas and electricity bill over a handful of months.

Scotton said at this point, there are too many unknown factors to know the exact size of the rate rider. However, he said he expects it to be modest.

Scotton said affected parties first have until the end of this week to notify the AUC exactly how much they are still owed.

Those parties include the Alberta Electric System Operator and the Balancing Pool, who essentially acted as bankers with respect to the distribution and transmission of the utilities to customers who deferred their payments.

Regulated service providers may also seek reimbursement on administrative and carrying costs, even as issues like a BC Hydro fund surplus spark debate elsewhere.

Then, Scotton said, once the outstanding amounts are known, the AUC will hold a public proceeding, similar to a Nova Scotia rate case, to determine the amount and the duration of the rate rider to be applied to each natural gas and electricity bill.

The amount will be based on consumption: per kilowatt hour for electricity and per gigajoule for natural gas.

That means larger businesses will end up paying more than the average Albertan.

Scotton said the AUC will expedite the hearing process and it expects to have a decision by the end of the summer.

Rate rider a 'surprise'
Joel MacDonald with Energyrates.ca — an organization which compares energy rates across the country — said it's not the amount of the rate rider that bothers him, but the fact that the repayment process wasn't made clear at the onset of the program.

"It came to us as a bit of a surprise," MacDonald said.

He said what was sold as a deferral program seems more like an electricity rebate program, or an "ability to pay" program.

"As opposed to the retailers looking into collection methods, anything that wasn't paid is basically just being forced upon all Alberta consumers," MacDonald said.

The expectation set out in the deferral legislation and regulations state utility providers such as Enmax and Epcor are expected to use reasonable efforts to try to collect the unpaid balances. It must then detail those reasonable efforts to the AUC.

A spokesperson for Enmax said it first works with its customers to find manageable payment arrangements and connects them with support services if they are unable to pay.

Then, if payment can't be arranged, it said it will work with a collection agency, which may even result in disconnection of service.

The spokesperson said only after all efforts have failed would Enmax seek reimbursement through this program.

Use tax revenues?
MacDonald also questioned why a government program isn't being paid for through general tax revenues.

He compared the utility deferral program to a mortgage subsidy program.

"Imagine that [Canada Mortgage And Housing Corporation] said, 'Hey, we had to give mortgage deferrals and some of these people never paid back their deferrals, so we're going to add an extra $300 to everyone's mortgage,'" he said.

"You'd expect that to come off of some sort of general taxation — not being assigned to other people's mortgages, right?"

In response, Maron said due to the current fiscal challenges facing the government — and the expected minimal costs to consumers, and even as a consumer price cap on electricity remains in place — it was determined that a rate rider would be an appropriate mechanism to repay bad debt associated with the program.

Scotton said rate riders aren't unusual — they're used to fine-tune rates for a set period of time.

He said under normal circumstances, regulated service providers can apply to the AUC to impose a rate rider to recover unexpected costs. And in some instances, they can provide a credit.

But in this situation, he said the debt is aggregated and, in turn, being collected more broadly.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Coal Community Transition Fund backs renewables, natural gas, and economic diversification, offering grants, workforce retraining, and community development to municipalities and First Nations as Alberta phases out coal-fired power by 2030.

Key Points

A provincial grant helping coal-impacted communities diversify, retrain workers, and transition to renewables by 2030.

✅ Grants for municipalities and First Nations

✅ Supports diversification and job retraining

✅ Focus on renewables, natural gas, and new sectors

The Coal Community Transition Fund is open to municipalities and First Nations affected as Alberta phases out coal-fired electricity by 2030 under the federal coal plan to focus on renewables and natural gas.

Economic Development Minister Deron Bilous says the government wants to ensure these communities thrive through the transition, aligning with views that fossil-fuel workers support the energy transition across the economy.

“Residents in our communities have concerns about the transition away from coal, even as discussions about phasing out fossil fuels in B.C. unfold nationally,” Rod Shaigec, mayor of Parkland County, said.

“They also have ideas on how we can mitigate the impacts on workers and diversify our economy, including clean energy partnerships to create new employment opportunities for affected workers. We are working to address those concerns and support their ideas. This funding means we can make those ideas a reality in various economic sectors of opportunity.”

The coal-mining town of Hanna, northeast of Calgary, has already received $450,000 through the program to work on economic diversification, exploring options like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap that could support new industries.

The application deadline for the coal transition fund is the end of November.

A provincial advisory panel is also expected to report back this fall on ways to create new jobs and retrain workers during the coal phase-out.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Jersey Electricity Standby Charge proposes a grid-backup fee for commercial self-generators of renewable energy, with a review delaying implementation; potential tariff impacts include 10-15 percent price rises, cost recovery, and network reliability.

Key Points

A grid-backup fee for Jersey self-generating businesses to share network costs fairly and curb electricity price rises.

✅ Applies to commercial self-generation using renewables or not

✅ Excludes full exporters and pre-charge installations

✅ Aims to recover grid costs and avoid 10-15% price rises

Electricity prices could rise by ten to 15 per cent if a standby charge for some commercial customers is not implemented, the chief executive of Jersey Electricity has warned.

Jersey Electricity has proposed extending a monthly fee to commercial customers who generate their own power through renewable means but still wish to be connected to Jersey’s grid as a back-up, echoing Ontario energy storage efforts to shore up reliability.

The States recently unanimously backed a proposal lodged by Deputy Carolyn Labey to delay administering the levy until a review could be carried out, as seen in the UK grid's net-zero transformation debates influencing policy. The charge, was due to be implemented next month but will now not be introduced until May, or later if the review has not concluded.

But Chris Ambler, JE chief executive, warned that failing to implement the standby charge could lead to additional costs for customers.

Some of JE’s commercial customers have already been charged a standby fee after generating their own power through non-renewable means.

The charge does not apply to businesses which export all of their electricity back into the system as part of a buy-back scheme or those which install self-generation facilities before the charge is implemented.

Deputy Labey argued that the Island had done ‘absolutely nothing’ to support the use of renewable energies and instead were discouraging locally generated power by allowing JE to set a standby charge.

She added that she was pleased that the Council of Ministers had already starting reviewing the charges but the debate needed to go ahead to ensure the work continued after the May election.

During a States debate last month, she said: ‘It is increasingly concerning that we, as an island in the 21st century, are happy for our electricity to be provided to us by an unregulated, publicly listed for-profit company with a monopoly on energy.

‘I also think that introducing a charge on renewables at a time when the world is experiencing a revolution in renewable energies, including offshore vessel charging solutions, which are becoming increasingly economic, is something that needs to be investigated.

‘Jersey should be looking to diversify our electricity production and supply, to help protect us from price and currency fluctuations and to ensure that we, as an island, receive the best deal possible for Islanders.’

Mr Ambler said that any price increase would be dependent on the future take-up and use of renewable-energy technology in Jersey.

He said: ‘The cost impact would not be significant in the short term but in the long term it could be significant. I think that we are obliged to let our customers know that.

‘It is very difficult to assess but if we are not able to levy a fair charge, then, as electricity shortages in Canada have shown, we could see prices rise by ten to 15 per cent over time.’

Mr Ambler added that his company was in favour of the use of renewable energy, with a third of the company’s electricity being generated by hydroelectric sources, but that the costs of implementing it needed to be fairly distributed, given how big battery rule changes can affect project viability elsewhere in the market.

And he said that, while it was difficult to quantify how much could be lost if the standby charge was not implemented, it could cost the company over £10 million.

‘In 2014, we only increased our prices by one per cent,’ he said. ‘We are reviewing our prices at the moment but if we did put an increase in place it would be modest and it would not be linked to the standby charge.’

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Texas ERCOT Power Grid leads U.S. wind generation yet faces isolated interconnection, FERC exemption, and high industrial energy use, with distinct electricity and natural gas prices managed by a single balancing authority.

Key Points

The state-run interconnection that balances Texas electricity, isolated from FERC oversight and other U.S. grids.

✅ Largest U.S. wind power producer, high industrial demand

✅ Operates one balancing authority, independent interconnection

✅ Pays lower electricity, higher natural gas vs national average

For nearly two decades, the Lone Star State has generated more wind-sourced electricity than any other state in the U.S., according to the Energy Information Administration, or EIA.

In 2022, EIA reported Texas produced more electricity than any other state and generated twice as much as second-place Florida.

However, Texas also leads the country in another category. According to EIA, Texas is the largest energy-consuming state in the nation across all sectors with more than half of the state’s energy being used by the industrial sector.

As of May 2023, Texas residents paid 43% more for natural gas and around 10% less for electricity compared to the national average, according to EIA, and in competitive areas shopping for electricity is getting cheaper as well. Commercial and industrial sectors on average for the same month paid 25% less for electricity compared to the national average.

U.S. electric system compared to Texas
The U.S. electric system is essentially split into three regions called interconnections and are managed by a total of 74 entities called balancing authorities that ensure that power supply and demand are balanced throughout the region to prevent the possibility of blackouts, according to EIA.

The three regions (Interconnections):

Eastern Interconnection: Covers all U.S. states east of the Rocky Mountains, a portion of northern Texas, and consists of 36 balancing authorities.
Western Interconnection: Covers all U.S. states west of the Rockies and consists of 37 balancing authorities.
ERCOT: Covers the majority of Texas and consists of one balancing authority (itself).

During the 2021 winter storm, Texas electric cooperatives were credited with helping maintain service in many communities.

“ERCOT is unique in that the balancing authority, interconnection, and the regional transmission organization are all the same entity and physical system,” according to EIA, a structure often discussed in analyses of Texas power grid challenges today.

With this being the case, Texas is the only state in the U.S. that balances itself, the only state that is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, and the only state that is not synchronously interconnected to the grid in the rest of the United States in the event of tight grid conditions, highlighting ongoing discussions about improving Texas grid reliability before peak seasons, according to EIA.

Every other state in the U.S. is connected to a web of multiple balancing authorities that contribute to ensuring power supply and demand are met.

California, for example, was the fourth largest electricity producer and the third largest electricity consumer in the nation in 2022, according to EIA, and California imports the most electricity from other states while Pennsylvania exports the most.

Although California produces significantly less electricity than Texas, it has the ability to connect with more than 10 neighboring balancing authorities within the Western Interconnection to interchange electricity, a dynamic that can see clean states importing dirty electricity under certain market conditions. ERCOT being independent only has electricity interchange with two balancing authorities, one of which is in Mexico.

Regardless of Texas’ unique power structure compared to the rest of the nation, the vast majority of the U.S. risked electricity supplies during this summer’s high heat, as outlined in severe heat blackout risks reports, according to EIA.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News