Is TECO Energy the next target in a utility industry undergoing a wave of consolidation?
The 112-year-old Tampa-based independent utility is already a small fish among Florida power providers. If the proposed merger of Duke Energy and Progress Energy is approved, TECO, with about 1 million customers, will find itself operating next to the nation's largest utility with a customer base seven times larger.
"TECO has been talked about as a target for a very long time," said Roger Conrad, editor of the Utility Forecaster and a leading utility analyst. "They're always on a short list of companies that might be attractive to someone."
"Utilities that have neighboring service territories — all things being equal — tend to be candidates for takeover," said Paul Franzen, a senior utilities analyst for St. Louis-based Edward Jones.
A smaller neighbor becomes increasingly appealing to a utility that sees an opportunity to consolidate operations and bolster revenues — the same thinking behind the Duke-Progress merger.
The TECO electric and natural gas service area abuts that of both Progress Energy, which operates throughout Central and North Florida, and FPL Group Inc., which operates from Manatee County southward and along Florida's eastern seaboard.
As a matter of policy, Progress Energy and FPL do not comment on speculative deals.
A merger might benefit consumers. "Generically, utility mergers offer the potential for relatively lower rates for customers," Franzen said. "In an environment of rising rates for customers, rates may still go up but they go up less than if the two companies had not merged."
Whether existing TECO customers would benefit from a takeover is unclear. They already pay lower rates $107.02 per 1,000 kilowatt hours than consumers across Tampa Bay $119.34. In part, that's because Progress customers are already paying for a nuclear power plant still in the planning and permitting stage.
Executives at Duke and Progress said their combined assets will make it easier to raise money for new plants and services, a benefit smaller utilities do not have.
TECO, which owns Tampa Electric and TECO Peoples Gas, emerged in recent years from $1 billion in debt that weighed down its value.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the utility's stock price was just over $12 a share, and observers often referred to it as "troubled TECO Energy."
But in the past six years, the company has paid off the debt, and, in the words of chief executive officer John Ramil, "regained the confidence of Wall Street."
Ramil took over as head of TECO last August, replacing former CEO Sherrill Hudson, who retired. He heads a company with 4,000 employees and a customer base that includes 667,000 electric customers in the Tampa Bay area and 334,000 natural gas customers in about three dozen Florida counties. The utility has $3.5 billion in revenue and $3.5 billion in market capitalization.
TECO also owns coal mines, which makes it more diverse than some other utility companies.
Its stock now goes for more than $18 a share, which Ramil said makes his company less likely to be a takeover target.
Ramil said he is seeing an uptick in the customer base as the economy slowly improves. Utility customers that the company lost because of vacant rental properties seem to be picking up, setting the stage to continue strong growth.
"There are good, positive signs," Ramil said.
"Why would anyone want to buy us now,'' he said, "when they could have paid less a few years ago?"
Despite TECO's higher stock price, Franzen, the utilities analyst, said — and Ramil acknowledges — larger companies will not be deterred from going after the company, if they see it as beneficial to their portfolios.
Franzen added that other utility companies are increasingly in a better position to purchase smaller companies as their own value grows.
"While company 'B' is up, company 'A' is up, too," Franzen said.
Another reason TECO's increased value might not deter a takeover: Many deals, including the Duke-Progress merger, involve an exchange of stock rather than cash.
Utility analyst Conrad said TECO and other smaller utilities should expect to be approached by bigger utilities.
"I think, eventually, most of these companies will get offers," he said. "My view is more of these utilities will face merger or takeover situations for a long time to come."
NDC Renewable Energy Ambition drives COP25 calls to align with the Paris Agreement, as IRENA urges 2030 targets toward 7.7 TW, accelerating decarbonization, energy transition, socio-economic benefits, and scalable renewables in Nationally Determined Contributions.
Key Points
Raised 2030 renewable targets in NDCs to meet Paris goals, reaching 7.7 TW efficiently and speeding decarbonization.
✅ Double current NDC renewables to align with 7.7 TW by 2030
✅ Cost effective pathway with jobs, growth, welfare gains
✅ Accelerates decarbonization and energy access per UN goals
We need an oracle to get us out of this debacle. The UN climate group has met for the 25th time. Will anything ever change?
Countries are being urged to significantly raise renewable energy ambition and adopt targets to transform the global energy system in the next round of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), according to a new IRENA report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) that will be released at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP25) in Madrid.
The report will show that renewable energy ambition within NDCs would have to more than double by 2030 to put the world in line with the Paris Agreement goals, cost-effectively reaching 7.7 terawatts (TW) of globally installed capacity by then. Today’s renewable energy pledges under the NDCs are falling short of this, targeting only 3.2 TW, even as over 30% of global electricity is already generated from renewables.
The reportNDCs in 2020: Advancing Renewables in the Power Sector and Beyondwill be released at IRENA’s official side event on enhancing NDCs and raising ambition on 11 December 2019.It will state that with over 2.3 TW installed renewable capacity today, following a record year for renewables in 2016, almost half of the additional renewable energy capacity foreseen by current NDCs has already been installed.
The analysis will also highlight that delivering on increased renewable energy ambition can be achieved in a cost-effective way and with considerable socio-economic benefits across the world.
“Increasing renewable energy targets is absolutely necessary,” said IRENA’s Director-General Francesco La Camera. “Much more is possible. There is a decisive opportunity for policy makers to step up climate action, including a fossil fuel lockdown, by raising ambition on renewables, which are the only immediate solution to meet rising energy demand whilst decarbonizing the economy and building resilience.
“IRENA’s analysis shows that a pathway to a decarbonised economy is technologically possible and socially and economically beneficial,” continued Mr. La Camera.
“Renewables are good for growth, good for job creation and deliver significant welfare benefits. With renewables, we can also expand energy access and help eradicate energy poverty by ensuring clean, affordable and sustainable electricity for all in line with the UN Sustainable Development Agenda 2030.
IRENA will promote knowledge exchange, strengthen partnerships and work with all stakeholders to catalyse action on the ground. We are engaging with countries and regions worldwide, from Ireland's green electricity push to other markets, to facilitate renewable energy projects and raise their ambitions”.
NDCs must become a driving force for an accelerated global energy transformation toward 100% renewable energy globally. The current pledges reflect neither the past decade’s rapid growth nor the ongoing market trends for renewables. Through a higher renewable energy ambition, NDCs could serve to advance multiple climate and development objectives.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Goreway Power Station Overbilling exposed by Ontario Energy Board shows IESO oversight failures, GCG gaming, and $100M in inappropriate payments at the Brampton natural gas plant, penalized with fines and repayments impacting Ontario ratepayers.
Key Points
Goreway exploited IESO GCG flaws, causing about $100M in improper payouts and fines.
✅ OEB probe flagged $89M in ineligible start-up O&M charges
✅ IESO fined Goreway $10M; majority of excess costs recovered
✅ Audit found $200M in overbilling across nine generators
Hydro customers shelled out about $100 million in "inappropriate" payments to a natural gas plant that exploited flaws in how Ontario manages its private electricity generators, according to the Ontario Energy Board.
The company operating the Goreway Power Station in Brampton "gamed" the system for at least three years, according to an investigation by the provincial energy regulator.
The investigation also delivers stinging criticism of the provincial government's Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), slamming it for a lack of oversight. The probe by the Ontario Energy Board's market surveillance panel was completed nearly a year ago, but was only made public in November because it was buried on its website without a news release. CBC News is the first media outlet to report on the investigation.
The excess payments to Goreway Power Station included:
$89 million in ineligible expenses billed as the costs of firing up power production.
$5.6 million paid in three months from a flaw in how IESO calculated top-ups for the company committing to generate power a day in advance.
Of $11.2 million paid to compensate the company for IESO ordering it to start or stop generating power, the investigation concluded "a substantial portion ... was the result of gaming."
Most privately-owned natural gas-fired plants in the province do not generate electricity constantly, but start and stop production in response to fluctuating market demand, even as the energy minister has requested an halt to natural gas generation across the grid. IESO pays them a premium for the costs of firing up production, through what it calls "generation cost guarantee" programs.
But the investigation found IESO did little checking into the details of Goreway Power Station's billings.
Goreway Power Station, located near Highway 407 in Brampton, Ont., is an 875 megawatt natural gas power plant. (Goreway)
"Conservatively, at least $89 million of Goreway's submissions were clearly ineligible by any reasonable measure," concludes the report.
"Goreway routinely submitted what were obviously inappropriate expenses to be reimbursed by the IESO, and ultimately borne by Ontario ratepayers,"
The investigation panel found an "extraordinary pattern" to these billings by Goreway Power Station, suggesting the IESO should have caught on sooner. The company submitted more than $100 million in start-up operating and maintenance costs during the three-year period investigated — more than all other gas-fired generators in the province combined. The company's costs per start-up were more than double the next most expensive power generator.
"Goreway repeatedly exploited defects in the GCG (generation cost guarantee) program, and in doing so received at least $89 million in gamed GCG payments."
Company fined $10M
The investigation covered a three-year period from when Goreway Power Station began generating power in June 2009. Investigators said that delays in releasing documents slowed down their probe, and they only obtained all the records they needed in April 2016.
The investigating panel does not have the power to impose penalties on companies it found broke the rules.
The IESO fined Goreway Power Station $10 million. The company has also repaid IESO "a substantial portion" of the excess payments it received during its first six years of operating, but the exact figure is blacked out in the investigation report that was made public.
The control room from which the provincial government's Independent Electricity System Operator manages Ontario's power supply. The agency is also responsible for managing contracts with private power producers.(IESO)
"Goreway does not agree with many of the draft report's findings and conclusions, including any suggestion that Goreway engaged in gaming or that it deliberately misled the IESO," writes lawyer George Vegh on behalf of the company in a response to the investigation report, dated Aug. 1.
"Goreway has implemented initiatives designed to ensure that compliance is a chief operating principle."
The power station, located near Highway 407 in Brampton, is a joint venture between Toyota Tsusho Corp. and JERA Co. Inc. During the period under scrutiny, the project was run by Toyota Tsusho and Chubu Electric Power Inc., both headquartered in Japan.
Investigators fear 'same situation' exists today
The report blames the provincially-controlled IESO for creating a system with defects that allowed the over-billing.
"Goreway was able to — and repeatedly did — exploit these defects," says the investigation report. It goes on to explain the flaws "have created opportunities for exploitation, to the serious financial disadvantage of Ontario's ratepayers," even as greening Ontario's grid could entail massive costs.
The investigation suggests IESO hasn't made adequate changes to ensure it won't happen again, at a time when an analysis of a dirtier grid is raising concerns.
"Goreway stands as a clear example of how generators are able to exploit the generation costs guarantee regime," says the report.
"The Panel is concerned that the same situation remains in place today."
PC energy critic Todd Smith raised CBC News' report on the Goreway Power Station in Tuesday's question period. (Ontario Legislature)
After CBC News broke the story Tuesday, the provincial government was forced to respond in question period, amid a broader push for new gas plants to boost electricity production.
"Here we have yet another gas plant scandal in Peel region that's costing electricity customers over $100 million," said PC energy critic Todd Smith. He slammed "the incompetence of a government that once again failed to look out for electricity customers."
Economic Development Minister Brad Duguid said: "There is no excuse for any company in this province to ever game the system."
Nine companies overbilled $200M: audit
The IESO found out about the overbilling "some time ago," said Duguid.
"They fully investigated, they've recovered most of the cost, they delivered a $10 million fine — the biggest fine on record."
The program that Goreway exploited became the subject of an audit that the IESO launched in 2011. The agency uncovered $200 million in ineligible billings by nine power producers, wrote the IESO vice president for policy Terry Young in an email to CBC News.
The IESO has recovered up to 85 per cent of those ineligible costs, Young noted.
Reforms to the design of the the program have removed the potential for overpayments and made it more efficient, he said, even as Ontario weighs embracing clean power more broadly. Last year, its total annual costs dropped to $23 million, down from $61 million in 2014.
India Industrial Output Slowdown deepens as power demand slumps, IIP contracts, and electricity, manufacturing, and mining weaken; capital goods plunge while RBI rate cuts struggle to lift GDP growth, infrastructure, and fuel demand.
Key Points
A downturn where IIP contracts as power demand, manufacturing, mining, and capital goods fall despite RBI rate cuts.
✅ IIP fell 4.3% in Sep, worst since Feb 2013.
✅ Power demand dropped for a third month, signaling weak industry.
✅ Capital goods output plunged 20.7%, highlighting weak investment.
India's power demand fell at the fastest pace in at least 12 years in October, signalling a continued decline in the industrial output, mirroring how China's power demand dropped when plants were shuttered, according to government data. Electricity has about 8% weighting in the country's index for industrial production.
India needs electricity to fuel its expanding economy and has at times rationed coal supplies when demand surged, but a third decline in power consumption in as many months points to tapering industrial activity in a nation that aims to become a $5 trillion economy by 2024.
India's industrial output fell at the fastest pace in over six years in September, adding to a series of weak indicators that suggests that the country’s economic slowdown is deep-rooted and interest rate cuts alone may not be enough to revive growth.
Annual industrial output contracted 4.3% in September, government data showed on Monday. It was the worst performance since a 4.4% contraction in February 2013, according to Refinitiv data.
Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast industrial output to fall 2% for the month.
“A contraction of industrial production by 4.3% in September is serious and indicative of a significant slowdown as both investment and consumption demand have collapsed,” said Rupa Rege Nitsure, chief economist of L&T Finance Holdings.
Economists say that weak series of data could mean economic growth for July-September period will remain near April-June quarter levels of 5%, which was a six-year low, and some analysts argue for rewiring India's electricity to bolster productivity. The Indian government is likely to release April-September economic growth figures by the end of this month.
Subdued inflation and an economic slowdown have prompted the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to cut interest rates by a total of 135 basis points this year, while coal and electricity shortages eased in recent months.
“These are tough times for the RBI, as it cannot do much about it but there will be pressures on it to act ...Blunt tools like monetary policy may not be effective anymore,” Nitsure said.
Data showed in September mining sector fell 8.5%, while manufacturing and electricity fell 3.9% and 2.6% respectively, even as imported coal volumes rose during April-October. Capital goods output during the month fell 20.7%, indicating sluggish demand.
“IIP (Index of Industrial Production) growth in October 2019 is also likely to be in negative territory and only since November 2019 one can expect mild IIP expansion, said Devendra Kumar Pant, Chief Economist and Senior Director, Public Finance, India Ratings & Research (Fitch Group).
Infrastructure output, which comprises eight main sectors, in September showed a contraction of 5.2%, the worst in 14 years, even as global daily electricity demand fell about 15% during pandemic lockdowns.
India's fuel demand fell to its lowest in more than two years in September, with consumption of diesel to its lowest levels since January 2017. Diesel and gasoline together make up over 7.4% of the IIP weightage.
In 2019/20 India's fuel demand — also seen as an indicator of economic and industrial activity — is expected to post the slowest growth in about six years.
UK Energy Price Cap drives household electricity bills and gas prices, as Ofgem adjusts unit rates amid natural gas shortages, Russia-Ukraine disruptions, inflation, recession risks, and limited storage; government support offers only short-term relief.
Key Points
The UK Energy Price Cap limits per-unit gas and electricity charges set by suppliers and adjusted by Ofgem.
✅ Reflects wholesale natural gas costs; varies quarterly
✅ Protects consumers from sudden electricity and heating bill spikes
✅ Does not cap total annual spend; usage still determines bills
The government organization that controls the cost of energy in Great Britain recently increased what is known as a price cap on household energy bills. The price cap is the highest amount that gas suppliers can charge for a unit of energy.
The new, higher cost has people concerned that they may not be able to pay for their gas and electricity this winter. Some might pay as much as $4,188 for energy next year. Earlier this year, the price cap was at $2,320, and a 16% decrease in bills is anticipated in April.
Why such a change?
Oil and gas prices around the world have been increasing since 2021 as economies started up again after the coronavirus pandemic. More business activities required more fuel.
Then, Russia invaded Ukraine in late February, creating a new energy crisis. Russia limited the amount of natural gas it sent to European countries that needed it to power factories, produce electricity and keep homes warm.
Some energy companies are charging more because they are worried that Russia might completely stop sending gas to European countries. And in Britain, prices are up because the country does not produce much gas or have a good way to store it. As a result, Britain must purchase gas often in a market where prices are high, and ministers have discussed ending the gas-electricity price link to ease bills.
Citibank, a U.S. financial company, believes the higher energy prices will cause inflation in Britain to reach 18 percent in 2023, while EU energy inflation has also been driven higher by energy costs this year. And the Bank of England says an economic slowdown known as a recession will start later this year.
Public health and private aid organizations worry that high energy prices will cause a “catastrophe” as Britons choose between keeping their homes warm and eating enough food.
What can government do?
As prices rise, the British government plans to give people between $450 and $1,400 to help pay for energy costs, while some British MPs push to further restrict the price charged for gas and electricity. But the help is seen by many as not enough.
If the government approves more money for fuel, it will probably not come until September, as the energy security bill moves toward becoming law. That is the time the Conservative Party will select a new leader to replace Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
The Labour Party says the government should increase the amount it provides for people to pay for fuel by raising taxes on energy companies. However, the two politicians who are trying to become the next Prime Minister do not seem to support that idea.
Giovanna Speciale leads an organization called the Southeast London Community Energy group. It helps people pay their bills. She said the money will help but it is only a short-term solution to a bigger problem with Britain’s energy system. Because the system is privately run, she said, “there’s very little that the government can do to intervene in this.”
Other European countries are seeing higher energy costs, but not as high, and at the EU level, gas price cap strategies have been outlined to tackle volatility. In France, gas prices are capped at 2021 levels. In Germany, prices are up by 38 percent since last year. However, the government is reducing some taxes, which will make it easier for the average person to buy gas. In Italy, prices are going up, but the government recently approved over $8 billion to help people pay their energy bills.
Hinkley Point C Reactor Installation signals UK energy security, nuclear power expansion, and low-carbon baseload, featuring EPR technology in Somerset to cut emissions, support net-zero goals, and deliver reliable electricity for homes and businesses.
Key Points
First EPR unit fitted at Hinkley Point C, boosting low-carbon baseload, grid reliability, and UK energy security.
✅ Generates 3.2 GW across two EPRs for 7% of UK electricity.
✅ Provides low-carbon baseload to complement wind and solar.
✅ Creates jobs and strengthens supply chains during construction.
The United Kingdom has made a significant stride toward securing its energy future with the installation of the first reactor at its newest nuclear power station. This development marks an important milestone in the nation’s efforts to combat climate change, reduce carbon emissions, and ensure a stable and sustainable energy supply. As the world moves towards greener alternatives to fossil fuels, nuclear power remains a key part of the UK's green industrial revolution and low-carbon energy strategy.
The new power station, located at Hinkley Point C in Somerset, is set to be one of the most advanced nuclear facilities in the country. The installation of its reactor represents a crucial step in the construction of the plant, with earlier milestones like the reactor roof lifted into place underscoring steady progress, which is expected to provide reliable, low-carbon electricity for millions of homes and businesses across the UK. The completion of the first reactor is seen as a pivotal moment in the journey to bring the station online, with the second reactor expected to follow shortly after.
A Historic Milestone
Hinkley Point C will be the UK’s first nuclear power station built in over two decades. The plant, once fully operational, will play a key role in the country's energy transition. The reactors at Hinkley Point C are designed to be state-of-the-art, using advanced technology that is both safer and more efficient than older nuclear reactors. Each of the two reactors will have the capacity to generate 1.6 gigawatts of electricity, enough to power approximately six million homes. Together, they will contribute about 7% of the UK’s electricity needs, providing a steady, reliable source of energy even during periods of high demand.
The installation of the first reactor at Hinkley Point C is not just a technical achievement; it is also symbolic of the UK’s commitment to energy security and its goal to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, a target that industry leaders say multiple new stations will be needed to meet effectively. Nuclear power is a crucial part of this equation, as it provides a stable, baseload source of energy that does not rely on weather conditions, unlike wind or solar power.
Boosting the UK’s Energy Capacity
The addition of Hinkley Point C to the UK’s energy infrastructure is expected to significantly boost the country’s energy capacity and reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. The UK government has been focused on increasing the share of renewable energy in its mix, and nuclear power is seen as an essential complement to intermittent renewable sources, especially as wind and solar have surpassed nuclear in generation at times. Nuclear energy is considered a low-carbon, reliable energy source that can fill the gaps when renewable generation is insufficient, such as on cloudy or calm days when solar and wind energy output may be low.
With the aging of the UK’s existing nuclear fleet and the gradual phase-out of coal-fired power plants, Hinkley Point C will help ensure that the country does not face an energy shortage as it transitions to cleaner energy sources. The plant will help to bridge the gap between the current energy infrastructure and the future, enabling the UK to phase out coal while maintaining a steady, low-carbon energy supply.
Safety and Technological Innovation
The reactors at Hinkley Point C are being constructed using the latest in nuclear technology. They are based on the European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) design, which is known for its enhanced safety features and efficiency, and has been deployed in projects within China's nuclear program as well, making it a proven platform. These reactors are designed to withstand extreme conditions, including earthquakes and flooding, making them highly resilient. Additionally, the EPR technology ensures that the reactors have a low environmental impact, producing minimal waste and offering the potential for increased sustainability compared to older reactor designs.
One of the key innovations in the Hinkley Point C reactors is their advanced cooling system, which is designed to be more efficient and environmentally friendly than previous generations. This system ensures that the reactors operate at optimal temperatures while minimizing the environmental footprint of the plant.
Economic and Job Creation Benefits
The construction of Hinkley Point C has already provided a significant boost to the local economy. Thousands of jobs have been created, not only in the construction phase but also in the ongoing operation and maintenance of the facility. The plant is expected to create more than 25,000 jobs during its construction and around 900 permanent jobs once it is operational.
The project is also expected to have a positive impact on the wider UK economy. As a major infrastructure project, Hinkley Point C will provide long-term economic benefits, including boosting supply chains and providing opportunities for local businesses.
Challenges and the Road Ahead
Despite the progress, the construction of Hinkley Point C has not been without its challenges. The project has faced delays and cost overruns, with setbacks at Hinkley Point C documented by industry observers, and the total estimated cost now standing at around £22 billion. However, the successful installation of the first reactor is a step toward overcoming these hurdles and completing the project on schedule.
Looking ahead, Hinkley Point C’s successful operation could pave the way for future nuclear developments in the UK, including next-gen nuclear designs that aim to be smaller, cheaper, and safer. As the world grapples with the pressing need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear energy may play an even more critical role in ensuring a clean, reliable energy future.
The installation of the first reactor at Hinkley Point C marks a crucial moment in the UK’s energy journey. As the country seeks to meet its carbon reduction targets and bolster its energy security, the new nuclear power station will be a cornerstone of its efforts. With its advanced technology, safety features, and potential to provide low-carbon energy for decades to come, Hinkley Point C offers a glimpse into the future of energy production in the UK and beyond.
