South Africa looks to nuclear, green power

Barakah Unit 4 Cold Hydrostatic Testing validates reactor coolant system integrity at the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant in Abu Dhabi, UAE, confirming safety, quality, and commissioning readiness under ENEC and KEPCO oversight.

Key Points

Pressure test of Unit 4's reactor coolant system, confirming integrity and safety for commissioning at Barakah.

✅ 25% above normal operating pressure verified.

✅ Welds, joints, and high-pressure components inspected.

✅ Supports safe, reliable, emissions-free baseload power.

The Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC) has successfully completed Cold Hydrostatic Testing (CHT) at Unit 4 of the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant, the Arab world’s first nuclear energy plant being built in the Al Dhafra region of Abu Dhabi, UAE. The testing incorporated the lessons learned from the previous three units and is a crucial step towards the completion of Unit 4, the final unit of the Barakah plant.

As a part of CHT, the pressure inside Unit 4’s systems was increased to 25 per cent above what will be the normal operating pressure, demonstrating, as seen across global nuclear projects, the quality and robust nature of the Unit’s construction. Prior to the commencement of CHT, Unit 4’s Nuclear Steam Supply Systems were flushed with demineralised water, and the Reactor Pressure Vessel Head and Reactor Coolant Pump Seals were installed. During the Cold Hydrostatic Testing, the welds, joints, pipes and components of the reactor coolant system and associated high-pressure systems were verified.

Mohammed Al Hammadi, Chief Executive Officer of ENEC said: “I am proud of the continued progress being made at Barakah despite the circumstances we have all faced in relation to COVID-19. The UAE leadership’s decisive and proactive response to the pandemic supported us in taking timely, safety-led actions to protect the health and safety of our workforce and our plant. These actions, alongside the efforts of our talented and dedicated workforce, have enabled the successful completion of CHT at Unit 4, which was completed in adherence to the highest standards of safety, quality, and security.

“With this accomplishment, we move another step closer to achieving our goal of supplying up to a quarter of our nation’s electricity needs through the national grid and powering its future growth with safe, reliable, and emissions-free electricity,” he added.

By the end of 2019, ENEC and Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), working with Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) on the project, had successfully completed all major construction work including major concrete pouring, installation of the Turbine Generator, and the internal components of the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) of Unit 4, which paved the way for the commencement of testing and commissioning.

The testing at Unit 4 represents a significant achievement in the development of the UAE Peaceful Nuclear Energy Program, following the successful completion of fuel assembly loading into Unit 1 in March 2020, confirming that the UAE has officially become a peaceful nuclear energy operating nation. Preparations are now in the final stages for the safe start-up of Unit 1, which subsequently reached 100% power ahead of commercial operations, in the coming months.

ENEC is currently in the final stages of construction of units 2, 3 and 4 of the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant, as China’s nuclear program continues its steady development globally. The overall construction of the four units is more than 94% complete. Unit 4 is more than 84 per cent, Unit 3 is more than 92 per cent and Unit 2 is more than 95 per cent. The four units at Barakah will generate up to 25 per cent of the UAE’s electricity demand by producing 5,600 MW of clean baseload electricity, as projects such as new reactors in Georgia take shape, and preventing the release of 21 million tons of carbon emissions each year – the equivalent of removing 3.2 million cars off the roads annually.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Electricity Market Competition drives lower wholesale prices, stable retail rates, better grid reliability, and faster emissions cuts as deregulation and renewables adoption pressure utilities, improve efficiency, and enhance consumer choice in power markets.

Key Points

Electricity market competition opens supply to rivals, lowering prices, improving reliability, and reducing emissions.

✅ Wholesale prices fell faster in competitive markets

✅ Retail rates rose less than in monopoly states

✅ Fewer outages, shorter durations, improved reliability

By Bernard L. Weinstein

Electricity used to be boring.  Public utilities that provided power to homes and businesses were regulated monopolies and, by law, guaranteed a fixed rate-of-return on their generation, transmission, and distribution assets. Prices per kilowatt-hour were set by utility commissions after lengthy testimony from power companies, wanting higher rates, and consumer groups, wanting lower rates.

About 25 years ago, the electricity landscape started to change as economists and others argued that competition could lead to lower prices and stronger grid reliability. Opponents of competition argued that consumers weren’t knowledgeable enough about power markets to make intelligent choices in a competitive pricing environment. Nonetheless, today 20 states have total or partial competition for electricity, allowing independent power generators to compete in wholesale markets and retail electric providers (REPs) to compete for end-use customers, a dynamic echoed by the Alberta electricity market across North America. (Transmission, in all states, remains a regulated natural monopoly).

A recent study by the non-partisan Pacific Research Institute (PRI) provides compelling evidence that competition in power markets has been a boon for consumers. Using data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), PRI’s researchers found that wholesale electricity prices in competitive markets have been generally declining or flat, prompting discussions of free electricity business models, over the last five years. For example, compared to 2015, wholesale power prices in New England have dropped more than 44 percent, those in most Mid-Atlantic States have fallen nearly 42 percent, and in New York City they’ve declined by nearly 45 percent. Wholesale power costs have also declined in monopoly states, but at a considerably slower rate.

As for end-users, states that have competitive retail electricity markets have seen smaller price increases, as consumers can shop for electricity in Texas more cheaply than in monopoly states. Again, using EIA data, PRI found that in 14 competitive jurisdictions, retail prices essentially remained flat between 2008 and 2020. By contrast, retail prices jumped an average of 21 percent in monopoly states.  The ten states with the largest retail price increases were all monopoly-based frameworks. A 2017 report from the Retail Energy Supply Association found customers in states that still have monopoly utilities saw their average energy prices increase nearly 19 percent from 2008 to 2017 while prices fell 7 percent in competitive markets over the same period.

The PRI study also observed that competition has improved grid reliability, the recent power disruptions in California and Texas, alongside disruptions in coal and nuclear sectors across the U.S., notwithstanding. Looking at two common measures of grid resiliency, PRI’s analysis found that power interruptions were 10.4 percent lower in competitive states while the duration of outages was 6.5 percent lower.

Citing data from the EIA between 2008 and 2018, PRI reports that greenhouse gas emissions in competitive states declined on average 12.1 percent compared to 7.3 percent in monopoly states. This result is not surprising, and debates over whether Israeli power supply competition can bring cheaper electricity mirror these dynamics.  In a competitive wholesale market, independent power producers have an incentive to seek out lower-cost options, including subsidized renewables like wind and solar. By contrast, generators in monopoly markets have no such incentive as they can pass on higher costs to end-users. Perhaps the most telling case is in the monopoly state of Georgia where the cost to build nuclear Plant Vogtle has doubled from its original estimate of $14 billion 12 years ago. Overruns are estimated to cost Georgia ratepayers an average of $854, and there is no definite date for this facility to come on line. This type of mismanagement doesn’t occur in competitive markets.

Unfortunately, some critics are attempting to halt the momentum for electricity competition and have pointed to last winter’s “deep freeze” in Texas that left several million customers without power for up to a week. But this example is misplaced. Power outages in February were the result of unprecedented and severe weather conditions affecting electricity generation and fuel supply, and numerous proposals to improve Texas grid reliability have focused on weatherization and fuel resilience; the state simply did not have enough access to natural gas and wind generation to meet demand. Competitive power markets were not a factor.

The benefits of wholesale and retail competition in power markets are incontrovertible. Evidence shows that households and businesses in competitive states are paying less for electricity while grid reliability has improved. The facts also suggest that wholesale and retail competition can lead to faster reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In short, competition in power markets is good for consumers and good for the environment.

Bernard L. Weinstein is emeritus professor of applied economics at the University of North Texas, former associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University, and a fellow of Goodenough College, London. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

India Village Electrification hailed by the IEA in World Energy Outlook 2018 showcases rapid energy access progress, universal village power, clean cooking advances via LPG, and Modi-led initiatives, inspiring Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Key Points

A national push to power every Indian village, praised by the IEA for boosting energy access and clean cooking.

✅ Electrified 597,464 villages ahead of schedule in April 2018.

✅ IEA hails India in World Energy Outlook 2018 as star performer.

✅ LPG connections surge via Ujjwala, aiding clean cooking access.

The global energy watchdog International Energy Agency (IEA) has called India's electrification of every village the greatest success story of 2018. In its latest report, World Energy Outlook 2018, the IEA has called India a "star performer" in terms of achieving the big milestone of the providing power to each village. "In particular, one of the greatest success stories in access to energy in 2018 was India completing the electrification of all of its villages," said the IEA. It added that countries like Indonesia and Bangladesh have also achieved the commendable electrification rate of 95% (up from 50% in 2000), and 80% (up from 20% in 2000), respectively, even as Europe's electrification push continues as part of broader transitions.

This 643-page report by the IEA says over 120 million people worldwide gained access to electricity in 2017 and charts growth in the electric car market as part of broader energy trends. For the first time ever, the total number of people without access fell below 1 billion, it said.  The mega plan of providing electricity to 597,464 villages in India was announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his Independence Day speech in 2015. On April 28, 2018, PM Modi confirmed that India had achieved its goal ahead of schedule. "This is one of the greatest achievements in the history of energy," said the IEA.

Praising the Narendra Modi government for making efforts towards lighting up every village in India, the agency said: "Since 2000 around half a billion people have gained access to electricity in India, with political effort over the last five years significantly accelerating progress."

India's achievement of providing universal household electricity access will improve the lives of over 230 million people, said the IEA, even as analyses like a Swedfund report debate some poverty outcomes in electrified areas. For a start, electric lighting makes the use of candles, kerosene and other polluting fuels for lighting redundant, not only saving money (and providing more light) but also seriously improving health, it said.

Though the global energy agency has called India "a success story", and a "bright spot for energy access", it says huge challenges remain in other regions of the world where over 670 million people still live without electricity access. "90% of these people are concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa, with countries such as Nigeria facing severe shortages," said the report.

Seven decades after independence and nearly three decades after India's economic liberalisation, the Modi government achieved the historic milestone of giving power to every single village of India, 12 days ahead of the deadline set by PM Modi. Leisang in Manipur became the last village to be connected to the grid, while a Delhi energy storage project explores ways to balance supply and demand.

The agency also praised India for tackling a related problem: access to clean cooking facilities. "While an estimated 780 million people in India rely on biomass for cooking, progress is emerging, as India is one of the few countries in the world targeting this "blind spot" of energy policy," it said.

Around 36 million LPG connections have been made since Prime Minister Modi and Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas, Dharmendra Pradhan, launched the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana scheme in May 2016 to provide free connections to families living below the poverty line. In India, around 50 million free LPG stoves and initial refills have been provided to poor households via this scheme since 2015. The government has set a target of providing LPG connections to 80 million households by 2020.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

NY & NJ Utility Shutoff Moratorium suspends power, heat, and water disconnections amid COVID-19, as PSEG, Con Edison, Avangrid, and American Water pledge relief, supporting vulnerable customers with payment plans and health protections.

Key Points

A temporary pause on power, heat, and water shutoffs during COVID-19, as major utilities act to protect affected customers.

✅ Applies to power, gas, and water; restores prior shutoffs.

✅ Voluntary utility action; no PSC order required in NY.

✅ Initial moratorium runs through April; payment plans available.

New Jersey and New York utilities will keep the power, heat and water on for all customers in response to the coronavirus emergency, both states announced Friday.

Major utilities have agreed to suspend utility shut-offs, a particular concern for people who may be out of work and cannot afford to pay their bills.

“No utility can turn off service … if a person cannot pay their bill as a result of responding to this virus situation,” said New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo during a press conference Friday.

Utilities in New York have voluntarily agreed to this measure, according to the governor’s office, reflecting a broader state moratorium on disconnections during emergencies. No order from the Public Service Commission is expected.

With growing concerns about the economic impacts of a virtual shutdown of businesses and large events to curtail the spread of the novel coronavirus, advocates are increasingly pushing financial relief for families amid pandemic energy insecurity pressures. There’s a campaign in New York to suspend evictions and foreclosures, with growing political support. A similar call has gone out in New Jersey.

As the weather warms, shut-offs of electric and gas service due to nonpayment tend to pick up. If people are quarantined or out of work due to a widespread economic slowdown, some advocates say they shouldn’t have to worry about having the lights or heat turned off, especially as examples of unpaid utility bills straining cities have emerged elsewhere.

“We recognize that customers may experience financial difficulty as a result of the outbreak, whether they or a family member fall ill, are required to quarantine, or because their income is otherwise affected,” said Michael Jennings, a spokesperson for Public Service Enterprise Group — the parent company of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, New Jersey’s largest utility — in a statement.

The company’s policy will be in place at least through the end of April, as will Atlantic City Electric’s, and other utilities such as PG&E's pandemic response included a similar moratorium during the outbreak.

“Curtailing shut-offs is good public policy to make sure New Jersey residents aren’t left in the lurch as they’re dealing with coronavirus,” said Eric Miller, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s New Jersey energy policy program. “Not having a safe place to be because you don't have electricity, gas or water doesn’t do anything to help address the coronavirus.”

Water service has also drawn attention. Major cities, including Atlanta and Detroit, have suspended shut-offs to ensure residents have water to wash their hands, while Texas utilities waived fees to support customers as well. Seattle suspended water and electric shutoffs.

American Water, which operates in 16 states and has 650,000 customers in New Jersey and 350,000 in New York, has halted any shutoffs amid the coronavirus pandemic and will also restore service, and similarly Hydro One reconnected customers in Canada to maintain access. New York City does not shut off service for nonpayment, but does issue liens against people’s property.

“Everyone, regardless as to what industry, has to have a heightened responsibility that’s encompassed in compassion and take everything into consideration,” New Jersey state Sen. Teresa Ruiz (D-Essex) told POLITICO. “Now is not the time to be worrying about late payments or bills. We need to get past this, hopefully, to see what we’re facing and then deal with other things.”

PSEG Long Island, a subsidiary of PSEG that handles day-to-day operations for the Long Island Power Authority, was the first New York utility to announce it is also suspending shutoffs before the governor’s announcement. The moratorium will remain in place through the end of April.

Rich Berkley, with the Public Utility Law Project, which advocates for low-income customers in New York, said he’s been in touch with state officials to make sure the issue of utility bills is considered during the pandemic. New York already has requirements for utilities to offer deferred payment agreements before shutting off service, he noted.

“The state has to act to protect the most vulnerable households first,” he said. “To the extent that the state is declaring areas of emergency, this should be part of the remedies the state deploys.”

But he noted that not everyone will have trouble paying their utility bills if they’re under quarantine.

“Given the background of a collapsing stock and equity market, all of which matters to the utilities, and shifts in electricity demand during COVID-19, we have to be careful about blanket moratoriums [on shutoffs] in New York,” Berkley said.

Con Edison, the largest utility in the state serving most of New York City, had already informed the Department of Public Service it will suspend all shut-offs in the one-mile radius New Rochelle containment area, spokesperson Michael Clendenin said on Thursday. The moratorium on shutoffs now includes its entire New York City and Westchester County territory.

Avangrid, which owns New York State Electric & Gas and Rochester Gas & Electric, serving broad swathes of upstate New York, will suspend shut-offs due to unpaid bills for 30 days, spokesperson Michael Jamison said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

New England Grid Reform Initiative aligns governors with ISO New England to reshape market design, boost grid reliability, accelerate renewable energy and offshore wind, explore carbon pricing and forward clean energy markets, and bolster accountability.

Key Points

Five states aim to reform ISO New England markets, prioritize renewables and reliability, and test carbon pricing.

✅ Governors seek market design aligned with clean energy mandates

✅ ISO-NE accountability and stakeholder engagement prioritized

✅ Explore carbon pricing and forward clean energy market options

Weeks after initiating a broad overhaul of utility regulation within its borders, Connecticut has recruited four New England states, as Maine debates a 145-mile transmission line project to rework the regional grid that is overseen by ISO New England, the independent system operator charged with ensuring a reliable supply of electricity from power plants.

In a written statement Thursday morning, Gov. Ned Lamont said the current structure “has actively hindered” states’ efforts to phase out polluting power plants in favor of renewable sources like wind turbines and solar panels, while increasing costs “to fix market design failures” in his words. Lamont’s energy policy chief Katie Dykes has emerged as a vocal critic of ISO New England’s structure and priorities, in her role as commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.

“When Connecticut opted to deregulate our electricity market, we wanted the benefits of competition — to achieve lower-cost energy, compatible with meeting our clean-energy goals,” Dykes said in a telephone interview Thursday afternoon. “We have a partner [in] ISO New England, to manage this grid and design a market that is not thwarting our clean-energy goals, but achieving them; and not ignoring consumers’ concerns. ... That’s really what we are looking to do — reclaim the benefits of competition and regional cooperation.”

Lamont and his counterparts in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and Maine plan to release a “vision document” in their words on Friday through the New England States Committee on Electricity, after New Hampshire rejected a Quebec-Massachusetts transmission proposal that sought to import Canadian hydropower.

The initial documents made no mention of New Hampshire, which likewise obtains electricity through the wholesale markets managed by ISO New England and has seen clashes over the Northern Pass hydropower project in recent years; and whose Seabrook Station is one two nuclear power plants in New England alongside Dominion Energy’s Millstone Power Station in Waterford. Gov. Chris Sununu’s office did not respond immediately to a query on why New Hampshire is not participating.

Connecticut and the four other states outlined a few broad goals that they will hone over the coming months. Those include creating a better market structure and planning process supporting the conversion to renewables; improving grid reliability, with measures such as an emergency fuel stock program considered; and increasing the accountability of ISO New England to the states and by extension their ratepayer households and businesses.

ISO New England spokesperson Matt Kakley indicated the Holyoke, Mass.-based nonprofit will “engage with the states and our stakeholders” on the governors’ proposal, in an email response to a query. He did not elaborate on any immediate opportunities or challenges inherent in the governors’ proposal.

“Maintaining reliable, competitively-priced electricity through the clean energy transition will require broad collaboration,” Kakley stated. “The common vision of the New England governors will play an important role in the discussions currently underway on the future of the grid.”

Renewable revolution
ISO New England launched operations in 1999, running auctions through which power plant operators bid to supply electricity, including against long-term projections for future needs that can only be met through the construction or installation of new generation capacity.

ISO New England falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rather than the states whose electricity supplies it is tasked with ensuring. That has led to pointed criticism from Dykes and Connecticut legislators that ISO New England is out of touch with the state’s push to switch to renewable sources of electricity.

Entering October, ISO New England published an updated outlook that revealed 60 percent of proposed power generators in the region’s future “queue” are wind farms, primarily offshore installations like the proposed Park City Wind project of Avangrid and Revolution Wind from Eversource. But Dykes recently criticized as unnecessary an NTE Energy plant approved already by ISO New England for eastern Connecticut, which will be fueled by natural gas if all other regulatory approvals are granted.

The six New England states participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that caps carbon emissions by individual power plants, while allowing them to purchase unused allowances from each other with that revenue funneled to the states to support renewable energy and conservation programs. FERC is now considering the concept of carbon pricing, which would levy a tax on power plants based on their emissions, and it also faces pressure to act on aggregated DERs from lawmakers.

ISO New England is investigating the concepts of net carbon pricing and a “forward clean energy market” that would borrow elements of the existing forward capacity market, but designed to meet individual state objectives for the percentage of renewable power they want generated while ensuring adequate electricity is in place when weather does not cooperate.

The Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority is collecting on its own initiative industry input on modernization proposals, as New York regulators open a formal review of retail energy markets for comparison, that would add up to hundreds of millions of dollars, including utility-scale batteries to store power generated by offshore wind farms and solar arrays; and “smart” meters in homes and businesses to help electricity customers better manage their power use.

The New England Power Pool serves as a central forum for plant operators, commercial users and others like the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel, amid Massachusetts solar demand charge debates that affect distributed generation policy, with NEPOOL’s chair stating Thursday morning the group was still reviewing the governors’ announcement.

“NEPOOL has been engaged this year in meetings ... exploring the transition to a future grid in New England and potential pathways forward to support that transition,” stated Nancy Chafetz, chair of NEPOOL, in an email.

Connecticut’s issues with ISO New England boiled over this summer on the heels of a power-purchase agreement between Millstone owner Dominion and transmission grid operators Eversource and United Illuminating, which contributed to a sharp increase in customer bills.

A few weeks ago, Lamont signed into law a “Take Back the Grid” act that allows the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority to factor in Eversource’s and Avangrid subsidiary United Illuminating’s past performance in maintaining electric reliability, in addition to any future needs for revenue based on needed upgrades. The law included an element for Connecticut to initiate a study of ISO New England’s role.

Eversource and Avangrid have voiced support for the switch to “performance-based” regulation in Connecticut. Eversource spokesperson Mitch Gross on Thursday cited the company’s view that any changes to the operation of New England’s wholesale power markets should occur within the existing ISO New England structure.

“We also recommend any examination of potential alternatives includes a thorough evaluation that ensures unfair costs would not be imposed on customers,” Gross stated in an email.

In a statement forwarded by Avangrid spokesperson Ed Crowder, the United Illuminating parent indicated it intends to have “a voice in this process” with the goal of continued grid reliability amid increased adoption of clean energy sources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News