California CCS Coalition is born

California Community Choice Aggregators are reshaping electricity markets with renewable energy, solar and wind sourcing, competitive rates, and customer choice, challenging PG&E, SDG&E, and Southern California Edison while advancing California's clean power goals.

Key Points

Local governments that buy power, often cleaner and cheaper, while utilities handle delivery and billing.

✅ Offer higher renewable mix than utilities at competitive rates

✅ Utilities retain transmission and billing responsibilities

✅ Rapid expansion threatens IOU market share across California

Nearly 2 million electricity customers in California may not know it, but they’re part of a revolution. That many residents and businesses are getting their power not from traditional utilities, but via new government-affiliated entities known as community choice aggregators. The CCAs promise to deliver electricity more from renewable sources, such as solar and wind, even as California exports its energy policies across Western states, and for a lower price than the big utilities charge.

The customers may not be fully aware they’re served by a CCA because they’re still billed by their local utility. But with more than 1.8 million accounts now served by the new system and more being added every month, the changes in the state’s energy system already are massive.

Faced for the first time with real competition, the state’s big three utilities have suddenly become havens of innovation. They’re offering customers flexible options on the portion of their power coming from renewable energy, amid a broader review to revamp electricity rates aimed at cleaning the grid, and they’re on pace to increase the share of power they get from solar and wind power to the point where they are 10 years ahead of their deadline in meeting a state mandate.

#google#

But that may not stem the flight of customers. Some estimates project that by late this year, more than 3 million customers will be served by 20 CCAs, and that over a longer period, Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric could lose 80% of their customers to the new providers.

Two big customer bases are currently in play: In Los Angeles and Ventura counties, a recently launched CCA called the Clean Power Alliance is hoping by the end of 2019 to serve nearly 1 million customers. Unincorporated portions of both counties and 29 municipalities have agreed in principle to join up.

Meanwhile, the city of San Diego is weighing two options to meet its goal of 100% clean power by 2035, as exit fees are being revised by the utilities commission: a plan to be submitted by SDG&E, or the creation of a CCA. A vote by the City Council is expected by the end of this year. A city CCA would cover 1.4 million San Diegans, accounting for half SDG&E’s customer demand, according to Cody Hooven, the city’s chief sustainability officer.

Don’t expect the big companies to give up their customers without a fight. Indeed, battle lines already are being drawn at the state Public Utilities Commission, where a recent CPUC ruling sided with a community energy program over SDG&E, and local communities.

“SDG&E is in an all-out campaign to prevent choice from happening, so that they maintain their monopoly,” says Nicole Capretz, who wrote San Diego’s climate action plan as a city employee and now serves as executive director of the Climate Action Campaign, which supports creation of the CCA.

California is one of seven states that have legalized the CCA concept, even as regulators weigh whether the state needs more power plants to ensure reliability. (The others are New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois and Rhode Island.) But the scale of its experiment is likely to be the largest in the country, because of the state’s size and the ambition of its clean-power goal, which is for 50% of its electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2030.

California created its system via legislative action in 2002. Assembly Bill 117 enabled municipalities and regional governments to establish CCAs anywhere that municipal power agencies weren’t already operating. Electric customers in the CCA zones were automatically signed up, though they could opt out and stay with their existing power provider. The big utilities would retain responsibility for transmission and distribution lines.

The first CCA, Marin Clean Energy, began operating in 2010 and now serves 470,000 customers in Marin and three nearby counties.

The new entities were destined to come into conflict with the state’s three big investor-owned utilities. Their market share already has fallen to about 70%, from 78% as recently as 2010, and it seems destined to keep falling. In part that’s because the CCAs have so far held their promise: They’ve been delivering relatively clean power and charging less.

The high point of the utilities’ hostility to CCAs was the Proposition 16 campaign in 2009. The ballot measure was dubbed the “Taxpayers Right to Vote Act,” but was transparently an effort to smother CCAs in the cradle. PG&E drafted the measure, got it on the ballot, and contributed all of the $46.5 million spent in the unsuccessful campaign to pass it.

As recently as last year, PG&E and SDG&E were lobbying in the legislature for a bill that would place a moratorium on CCAs. The effort failed, and hasn’t been revived this year.

Rhetoric similar to that used by PG&E against Marin’s venture has surfaced in San Diego, where a local group dubbed “Clear the Air” is fighting the CCA concept by suggesting that it could be financially risky for local taxpayers and questioning whether it will be successful in providing cleaner electricity. Whether Clear the Air is truly independent of SDG&E’s parent, Sempra Energy, is questionable, as at least two of its co-chairs are veteran lobbyists for the company.

SDG&E spokeswoman Helen Gao says the utility supports “customers’ right to choose an energy provider that best meets their needs” and expects to maintain a “cooperative relationship” with any provider chosen by the city.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Negative Electricity Prices in France signal oversupply from wind and solar, stressing the wholesale market and grid. Better storage, demand response, and interconnections help balance renewables and stabilize prices today.

Key Points

They occur when renewable output exceeds demand, pushing power prices below zero as excess energy strains the grid.

✅ Driven by wind and solar surges with low demand

✅ Challenges thermal plants; erodes margins at negative prices

✅ Needs storage, demand response, and cross-border interties

France has recently experienced an unusual and unprecedented situation in its electricity market: negative electricity prices. This development, driven by a significant influx of renewable energy sources, highlights the evolving dynamics of energy markets as countries increasingly rely on clean energy technologies. The phenomenon of negative pricing reflects both the opportunities and renewable curtailment challenges associated with the integration of renewable energy into national grids.

Negative electricity prices occur when the supply of electricity exceeds demand to such an extent that producers are willing to pay consumers to take the excess energy off their hands. This situation typically arises during periods of high renewable energy generation coupled with low energy demand. In France, this has been driven primarily by a surge in wind and solar power production, which has overwhelmed the grid and created an oversupply of electricity.

The recent surge in renewable energy generation can be attributed to a combination of favorable weather conditions and increased capacity from new renewable energy installations. France has been investing heavily in wind and solar energy as part of its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning towards a more sustainable energy system, in line with renewables surpassing fossil fuels in Europe in recent years. While these investments are essential for achieving long-term climate goals, they have also led to challenges in managing energy supply and demand in the short term.

One of the key factors contributing to the negative prices is the variability of renewable energy sources. Wind and solar power are intermittent by nature, meaning their output can fluctuate significantly depending on weather conditions, with solar reshaping price patterns in Northern Europe as deployment grows. During times of high wind or intense sunshine, the electricity generated can far exceed the immediate demand, leading to an oversupply. When the grid is unable to store or export this excess energy, prices can drop below zero as producers seek to offload the surplus.

The impact of negative prices on the energy market is multifaceted. For consumers, negative prices can lead to lower energy costs as wholesale electricity prices fall during oversupply, and even potential credits or payments from energy providers. This can be a welcome relief for households and businesses facing high energy bills. However, negative prices can also create financial challenges for energy producers, particularly those relying on conventional power generation methods. Fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, which have higher operating costs, may struggle to compete when prices are negative, potentially affecting their profitability and operational stability.

The phenomenon also underscores the need for enhanced energy storage and grid management solutions. Excess energy generated from renewable sources needs to be stored or redirected to maintain grid stability and avoid negative pricing situations. Advances in battery storage technology, such as France's largest battery storage platform, and improvements in grid infrastructure are essential to addressing these challenges and optimizing the integration of renewable energy into the grid. By developing more efficient storage solutions and expanding grid capacity, France can better manage fluctuations in renewable energy production and reduce the likelihood of negative prices.

France's experience with negative electricity prices is part of a broader trend observed in other countries with high levels of renewable energy penetration. Similar situations have occurred in Germany, where solar plus storage is now cheaper than conventional power, the United States, and other regions where renewable energy capacity is rapidly expanding. These instances highlight the growing pains associated with transitioning to a cleaner energy system and the need for innovative solutions to balance supply and demand.

The French government and energy regulators are closely monitoring the situation and exploring measures to mitigate the impact of negative prices. Policy adjustments, market reforms, and investments in energy infrastructure are all potential strategies to address the challenges posed by high renewable energy generation. Additionally, encouraging the development of flexible demand response programs and enhancing grid interconnections with neighboring countries can help manage excess energy and stabilize prices.

In the long term, the rise of renewable energy and the occurrence of negative prices represent a positive development for the energy transition. They indicate progress towards cleaner energy sources and a more sustainable energy system. However, managing the associated challenges is crucial for ensuring that the transition is smooth and economically viable for all stakeholders involved.

In conclusion, the recent instance of negative electricity prices in France highlights the complexities of integrating renewable energy into the national grid. While the phenomenon reflects the success of France’s efforts to expand its renewable energy capacity, it also underscores the need for advanced grid management and storage solutions. As the country continues to navigate the transition to a more sustainable energy system, addressing these challenges will be essential for maintaining a stable and efficient energy market. The experience serves as a valuable lesson for other nations undergoing similar transitions and reinforces the importance of innovation and adaptability in the evolving energy landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Great British Energy could cut UK electricity costs via public ownership, investing in clean energy like wind, solar, tidal, and nuclear, curbing windfall profits, stabilizing bills, and reinvesting returns through a state-backed generator.

Key Points

A proposed state-backed UK generator investing in clean power to cut costs and return gains to taxpayers.

✅ Publicly owned investment in wind, solar, tidal, and nuclear

✅ Cuts electricity bills by reducing generators' windfall profits

✅ Funded via bonds or asset buyouts; non-profit operations

A publicly owned electricity generation firm could save Britons nearly £21bn a year, according to new analysis that bolsters Labour’s case to launch a national energy company if the party gains power.

Thinktank Common Wealth has calculated that the cost of generating electricity to power homes and businesses could be reduced by £20.8bn or £252 per household a year under state ownership, according to a report seen by the Guardian.

The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, has committed to creating “a publicly owned national champion in clean energy” named Great British Energy.

Starmer is yet to lay out the exact structure of the mooted company, although he has said it would not involve nationalising existing assets, or become involved in the transmission grid or retail supply of energy.

Starmer instead hopes to create a state-backed entity that would invest in clean energy – wind, solar, tidal, nuclear, large-scale storage and other emerging technologies – creating jobs and ensuring windfalls from the growth in low carbon power feed back to the government.

The Common Wealth report, which analysed scenarios for reforming the electricity market, said that a huge saving on electricity costs could be made by buying out assets such as wind, solar and biomass generators on older contracts and running them on a non-profit basis. Funding the measure could require a government bond issuance, or some form of compulsory purchase process.

Last year the government attempted to get companies operating low carbon generators, including nuclear power plants, on older contracts to switch to contracts for difference (CfD), allowing any outsized profits to flow back to taxpayers. However, the government later decided to tax eligible firms through the electricity generator levy instead.

The Common Wealth study concluded that a publicly owned low carbon energy generator would best deliver on Britain’s climate and economic goals, would eliminate windfall profits made by generators and would cut household bills significantly.

MPs and campaigners have argued that Britain’s energy companies should be nationalised since the energy crisis, even as coal-free records have multiplied and renewables still need more support, which has resulted in North Sea oil and gas producers and electricity generators making windfall profits, and a string of retail suppliers collapsing, costing taxpayers billions. Detractors of nationalisation in energy argue it can stifle innovation and expose taxpayers to huge financial risks.

Common Wealth pointed out that more than 40% of the UK’s offshore wind generation capacity was publicly owned by overseas national entities, meaning the benefits of high electricity prices linked to the war in Ukraine had flowed back to other governments.

The study found the publicly owned generator model would create more savings than other options, including a drive for voluntary CfDs; splitting the generation market between low carbon and fossil fuel sources at a time when wind and solar have outproduced nuclear, and a “single buyer model” with nationalised retail suppliers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Lithium Brine can power EV batteries via direct lithium extraction, leveraging oilfield infrastructure and critical minerals policy to build a low-carbon supply chain with clean energy, lower emissions, and domestic manufacturing advantages.

Key Points

Alberta lithium brine is subsurface saline water rich in lithium, extracted via DLE to supply EV batteries.

✅ Uses direct lithium extraction from oilfield brines

✅ Leverages Alberta infrastructure and skilled workforce

✅ Supports EV battery supply chain with lower emissions

After a most difficult several months, Canadians are cautiously emerging from their COVID-19 isolation and confronting a struggling economy.
There’s a growing consensus that we need to build back better from COVID-19, and to position for the U.S. auto sector’s pivot to electric vehicles as supply chains evolve. Instead of shoring up the old economy as we did following the 2008 financial crisis, we need to make strategic investments today that will prepare Canada for tomorrow’s economy.

Tomorrow’s energy system will look very different from today’s — and that tomorrow is coming quickly. The assets of today’s energy economy can help build and launch the new industries required for a low-carbon future. And few opportunities are more intriguing than the growing lithium market.

The world needs lithium – and Alberta has plenty

It’s estimated that three billion tonnes of metals will be required to generate clean energy by 2050. One of those key metals – lithium, a light, highly conductive metal – is critical to the construction of battery electric vehicles (BEV). As global automobile manufacturers design hundreds of new BEVs, demand for lithium is expected to triple in the next five years alone, a trend sharpened by pandemic-related supply risks for automakers.

Most lithium today originates from either hard rock or salt flats in Australia and South America. Alberta’s oil fields hold abundant deposits of lithium in subsurface brine, but so far it’s been overlooked as industrial waste. With new processing technologies and growing concerns about the security of global supplies, this is set to change. In January, Canada and the U.S. finalized a Joint Action Plan on Critical Minerals to ensure supply security for critical minerals such as lithium and to promote supply chains closer to home, aligning with U.S. efforts to secure EV metals among allies worldwide.

This presents a major opportunity for Canada and Alberta. Lithium brine will be produced much like the oil that came before it. This lithium originates from many of the same reservoirs responsible for driving both Alberta’s economy and the broader transportation fuel sector for decades. The province now has extensive geological data and abundant infrastructure, including roads, power lines, rail and well sites. Most importantly, Alberta has a highly trained workforce. With very little retooling, the province could deliver significant volumes of newly strategic lithium.

Specialized technologies known as direct lithium extraction, or DLE, are being developed to unlock lithium-brine resources like those in Canada. In Alberta, E3 Metals* has formed a development partnership with U.S. lithium heavyweight Livent Corporation to advance and pilot its DLE technology. Prairie Lithium and LiEP Energy formed a joint venture to pilot lithium extraction in Saskatchewan. And Vancouver’s Standard Lithium is already piloting its own DLE process in southern Arkansas, where the geology is very similar to Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Heavy on quality, light on emissions

All lithium produced today has a carbon footprint, most of which can be tied back to energy-intensive processing. The purity of lithium is essential to battery safety and performance, but this comes at a cost when lithium is mined with trucks and shovels and then refined in coal-heavy China.

As automakers look to source more sustainable raw materials, battery recycling will complement responsible extraction, and Alberta’s experience with green technologies such as renewable electricity and carbon capture and storage can make it one of the world’s largest suppliers of zero-carbon lithium.

Beyond raw materials

The rewards would be considerable. E3 Metals’ Alberta project alone could generate annual revenues of US$1.8 billion by 2030, based on projected production and price forecasts. This would create thousands of direct jobs, as initiatives like a lithium-battery workforce initiative expand training, and many more indirectly.

To truly grow this industry, however, Canada needs to move beyond its comfort zone. Rather than produce lithium as yet another raw-commodity export, Canadians should be manufacturing end products, such as batteries, for the electrified economy, with recent EV assembly deals underscoring Canada’s momentum. With nickel and cobalt refining, graphite resources and abundant petrochemical infrastructure already in place, Canada must aim for a larger piece of the supply chain.

By 2030, the global battery market is expected to be worth $116 billion annually. The timing is right to invest in a strategic commodity and grow our manufacturing sector. This is why the Alberta-based Energy Futures Lab has called lithium one of the ‘Five big ideas for Alberta’s economic recovery.’  The assets of today’s energy economy can be used to help build and launch new resource industries like lithium, required for the low-carbon energy system of the future.

Industry needs support

To do this, however, governments will have to step up the way they did a generation ago. In 1975, the Alberta government kick-started oil-sands development by funding the Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority. AOSTRA developed a technology called SAGD (steam-assisted gravity drainage) that now accounts for 80% of Alberta’s in situ oil-sands production.

Canada’s lithium industry needs similar support. Despite the compelling long-term economics of lithium, some industry investors need help to balance the risks of pioneering such a new industry in Canada. The U.S. government has recognized a similar need, with the Department of Energy’s recent US$30 million earmarked for innovation in critical minerals processing and the California Energy Commission’s recent grants of US$7.8 million for geothermal-related lithium extraction.

To accelerate lithium development in Canada, this kind of leadership is needed. Government-assisted financing could help early-stage lithium-extraction technologies kick-start a whole new industry.

Aspiring lithium producers are also looking for government’s help to repurpose inactive oil and gas wells. The federal government has earmarked $1 billion for cleaning up inactive Alberta oil wells. Allocating a small percentage of that total for repurposing wells could help transform environmental liabilities into valuable clean-energy assets.

The North American lithium-battery supply chain will soon be looking for local sources of supply, and there is room for Canada-U.S. collaboration as companies turn to electric cars, strengthening regional resilience.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ukraine Nuclear Plant Ownership Proposal outlines U.S. management of Ukrainian reactors amid the Russia-Ukraine war, citing nuclear safety, energy security, and IAEA oversight; Kyiv rejects ownership transfer, especially regarding Zaporizhzhia under Russian control.

Key Points

U.S. control of Ukraine's nuclear plants for safety; Kyiv rejects transfer, citing sovereignty risks at Zaporizhzhia.

✅ U.S. proposal to manage Ukraine's reactors amid war

✅ Kyiv refuses ownership transfer; open to investment

✅ Zaporizhzhia under Russian control raises safety risks

In the midst of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial idea: Ukraine should give its nuclear power plants to the United States for safekeeping and management. This suggestion came during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wherein Trump expressed the belief that American ownership of these nuclear plants could offer them the best protection amid the ongoing war. But Kyiv, while open to foreign support, has firmly rejected the idea of transferring ownership, especially as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant remains under Russian occupation.

Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure has always been a vital component of its power generation. Before the war, the country’s four nuclear plants supplied nearly half of its electricity. As Russia's military forces target Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including power plants and coal mines, international watchdogs like the IAEA have warned of nuclear risks as these nuclear facilities have become crucial to maintaining the nation’s energy stability. The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, has attracted international concern due to its size and the ongoing threat of a potential nuclear disaster.

Trump’s Proposal and Ukraine’s Response

Trump’s proposal of U.S. ownership came as a response to the ongoing threats posed by Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant. Trump argued that the U.S., with its expertise in running nuclear power plants, could safeguard these facilities from further damage and potential nuclear accidents. However, Zelenskyy quickly clarified that the discussion was only focused on the Zaporizhzhia plant, which is currently under Russian control. The Ukrainian president emphasized that Kyiv would not entertain the idea of permanently transferring ownership of its nuclear plants, even though they would welcome investment in their restoration and modernization, particularly after the war.

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions since Russia's occupation in 2022. Despite being in "cold shutdown" to prevent further risk of explosions, the facility remains a major concern due to its potential to cause a nuclear disaster. Ukrainian officials, along with international observers, have raised alarm about the safety risks posed by the plant, including mines at Zaporizhzhia reported by UN watchdogs, which is situated in a war zone and under the control of Russian forces who are reportedly neglecting proper safety protocols.

The Fear of a Nuclear Provocation

Ukrainians have expressed concerns that Trump’s proposal could embolden Russia to escalate tensions further, even as a potential agreement on power-plant attacks has been discussed by some parties. Some fear that any attempt to reclaim the plant by Ukraine could trigger a Russian provocation, including a deliberate attack on the plant, which would have catastrophic consequences for both Ukraine and the broader region. The analogy is drawn with the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine accuses Russia of sabotaging, an act that severely disrupted water supplies to the Zaporizhzhia plant. Ukrainian military officials, including Ihor Romanenko, a former deputy head of Ukraine’s armed forces, warned that Trump’s suggestion might be an exploitation of Ukraine’s vulnerable position in the ongoing war.

Despite these fears, there are some voices within Ukraine, including former employees of the Zaporizhzhia plant, who believe that a deliberate attack by Russian forces is unlikely. They argue that the Russian military needs the plant in functioning condition for future negotiations, with Russia building new power lines to reactivate the site as part of that calculus, and any damage could reduce its value in such exchanges. However, the possibility of Russian negligence or mismanagement remains a significant risk.

The Strategic Role of Ukraine's Nuclear Plants

Ukraine's nuclear plants were a cornerstone of the country’s energy sector long before the conflict began. In recent years, as Ukraine lost access to coal resources in the Donbas region due to Russian occupation, nuclear power became even more vital, alongside a growing focus on wind power to improve resilience. The country’s reliance on these plants grew as Russia launched a sustained campaign to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including attacks on nuclear power stations.

The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, holds strategic importance not only due to its size but also because of its location in southeastern Ukraine, an area that has been at the heart of the conflict. Despite being in Russian hands, the plant’s reactors have been safely shut down, reducing the immediate risk of a nuclear explosion. However, the plant’s future remains uncertain, as Russia’s long-term control over it could disrupt Ukraine’s energy security for years to come.

Wider Concerns About Aging Nuclear Infrastructure

Beyond the geopolitical tensions, there are broader concerns about the aging infrastructure of Ukraine's nuclear power plants. International watchdogs, including the environmentalist group Bankwatch, have criticized these facilities as “zombie reactors” due to their outdated designs and safety risks. Experts have called for Ukraine to decommission some of these reactors, fearing that they are increasingly unsafe, especially in the context of a war.

However, Ukrainian officials, including Petro Kotin, head of Energoatom (Ukraine's state-owned nuclear energy company), argue that these reactors are still functional and critical to Ukraine's energy needs. The ongoing conflict, however, complicates efforts to modernize and secure these facilities, which are increasingly vulnerable to both physical damage and potential nuclear hazards.

The Global Implications

Trump's suggestion to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has raised significant concerns on the international stage. Some fear that such a move could set a dangerous precedent for nuclear security and sovereignty. Others see it as an opportunistic proposal that exploits Ukraine's wartime vulnerability.

While the future of Ukraine's nuclear plants remains uncertain, one thing is clear: these facilities are now at the center of a geopolitical struggle that could have far-reaching consequences for the energy security of Europe and the world. The safety of these plants and their role in Ukraine's energy future will remain a critical issue as the war continues and as Ukraine navigates its relations with both the U.S. and Russia, with the grid even having resumed electricity exports at times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Electric Ireland Electricity Price Increase stems from rising wholesale costs as energy suppliers adjust tariffs. Customers face higher electricity bills, while gas remains unchanged; switching provider could deliver savings during winter.

Key Points

A 4% increase in Electric Ireland electricity prices from 1 Feb 2018, driven by wholesale costs; gas unchanged.

✅ 4% electricity rise effective 1 Feb 2018

✅ Increase attributed to rising wholesale energy costs

✅ Switching supplier may reduce bills and boost savings

ELECTRIC IRELAND has announced that it will increase its household electricity prices by 4% from 1 February 2018.

This comes just a week after both Bord Gáis Energy and SSE Airtricity announced increases in their gas and electricity prices, while national efforts to secure electricity supplies continue in parallel.

Electric Ireland has said that the electricity price increase is unavoidable due to the rising wholesale cost of electricity, with EU electricity prices trending higher as well.

The electricity provider said it has no plans to increase residential gas prices at the moment.

Commenting on the latest announcement, Eoin Clarke, managing director of Switcher.ie, said: “This is the third largest energy supplier to announce a price increase in the last week, so the other suppliers are probably not far behind.

“The fact that the rise is not coming into effect until 1 February will be welcomed by Electric Ireland customers who are worried about the rising cost of energy as winter sets in,” he said.

However, any increase is still bad news, especially as a quarter of consumers (27%) say their energy bill already puts them under financial pressure, and EU energy inflation has disproportionately affected lower-income households.

According to Electric Ireland, this will amount to a €2.91 per month increase for an average electricity customer, amounting to €35 per year.

Meanwhile, SSE Airtricity’s change amounts to an increase of 90 cent per week or €46.80 per year for someone with average consumption on their 24hr SmartSaver standard tariff, far below the dramatic Spain electricity price surge seen recently.

Bord Gáis Energy said its announcement will increase a typical gas bill by €2.12 a month and a typical electricity bill by €4.77 a month, reflecting wider trends such as the Germany power price spike reported recently.

In a statement, Bord Gáis Energy said: “The changes, which will take effect from 1st November 2017, are due to significant increases in the wholesale cost of energy as well as higher costs associated with distributing energy on the gas and electricity networks.

“In percentage terms, the increase represents 3.4% in a typical customer’s gas bill and an increase of 5.9% in a typical customer’s electricity bill.”

Clark said that if customers haven’t switched electricity provider in over a year that they should review the deals available at the moment.

“The market is highly competitive so there are huge savings to be made by switching,” he said.

“All suppliers use the same cables to supply electricity to your home, so you don’t need to worry about any loss in service, and you could save up to 324 by switching from typical standard tariffs to the cheapest deals on the market.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News