General Electric looks to sell appliance unit: report

New England oil-fired generation surges as ISO New England manages a cold snap, dual-fuel switching, and a natural gas price spike, highlighting winter reliability challenges, LNG and pipeline limits, and rising CO2 emissions.

Key Points

Reliance on oil-burning power plants during winter demand spikes when natural gas is costly or constrained.

✅ Driven by dual-fuel switching amid high natural gas prices

✅ ISO-NE winter reliability rules encourage oil stockpiles

✅ Raises CO2 emissions despite coal retirements and renewables growth

New England is relying on oil-fired generators for the most electricity since 2018 as a frigid blast boosts demand for power and natural gas prices soar across markets. 

Oil generators were producing more than 4,200 megawatts early Thursday, accounting for about a quarter of the grid’s power supply, according to ISO New England. That was the most since Jan. 6, 2018, when oil plants produced as much as 6.4 gigawatts, or 32% of the grid’s output, said Wood Mackenzie analyst Margaret Cashman.  

Oil is typically used only when demand spikes, because of higher costs and emissions concerns. Consumption has been consistently high over the past three weeks as some generators switch from gas, which has surged in price in recent months. New England generators are producing power from oil at an average rate of almost 1.8 gigawatts so far this month, the highest for January in at least five years. 

Oil’s share declined to 16% Friday morning ahead of an expected snowstorm, which was “a surprise,” Cashman said. 

“It makes me wonder if some of those generators are aiming to reserve their fuel for this weekend,” she said.

During the recent cold snap, more than a tenth of the electricity generated in New England has been produced by power plants that haven’t happened for at least 15 years.

Burning oil for electricity was standard practice throughout the region for decades. It was once our most common fuel for power and as recently as 2000, fully 19% of the six-state region’s electricity came from burning oil, according to ISO-New England, more than any other source except nuclear power at the time.

Since then, however, natural gas has gotten so cheap that most oil-fired plants have been shut or converted to burn gas, to the point that just 1% of New England’s electricity came from oil in 2018, whereas about half our power came from natural gas generation regionally during that period. This is good because natural gas produces less pollution, both particulates and greenhouse gasses, although exactly how much less is a matter of debate.

But as you probably know, there’s a problem: Natural gas is also used for heating, which gets first dibs. Prolonged cold snaps require so much gas to keep us warm, a challenge echoed in Ontario’s electricity system as supply tightens, that there might not be enough for power plants – at least, not at prices they’re willing to pay.

After we came close to rolling brownouts during the polar vortex in the 2017-18 winter because gas-fired power plants cut back so much, ISO-NE, which has oversight of the power grid, established “winter reliability” rules. The most important change was to pay power plants to become dual-fuel, meaning they can switch quickly between natural gas and oil, and to stockpile oil for winter cold snaps.

We’re seeing that practice in action right now, as many dual-fuel plants have switched away from gas to oil, just as was intended.

That switch is part of the reason EPA says the region’s carbon emissions have gone up in the pandemic, from 22 million tons of CO2 in 2019 to 24 million tons in 2021. That reverses a long trend caused partly by closing of coal plants and partly by growing solar and offshore wind capacity: New England power generation produced 36 million tons of CO2 a decade ago.

So if we admit that a return to oil burning is bad, and it is, what can we do in future winters? There are many possibilities, including tapping more clean imports such as Canadian hydropower to diversify supply.

The most obvious solution is to import more natural gas, especially from fracked fields in New York state and Pennsylvania. But efforts to build pipelines to do that have been shot down a couple of times and seem unlikely to go forward and importing more gas via ocean tanker in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) is also an option, but hits limits in terms of port facilities.

Aside from NIMBY concerns, the problem with building pipelines or ports to import more gas is that pipelines and ports are very expensive. Once they’re built they create a financial incentive to keep using natural gas for decades to justify the expense, similar to moves such as Ontario’s new gas plants that lock in generation. That makes it much harder for New England to decarbonize and potentially leaves ratepayers on the hook for a boatload of stranded costs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Carbon Price Support, the UK carbon tax on power, slashed coal generation, cut CO2 emissions, boosted gas and imports via interconnectors, and signaled effective electricity market decarbonization across Great Britain and the EU.

Key Points

A UK power-sector carbon tax that drove coal off the grid, cut emissions, and shifted generation toward gas and imports.

✅ Coal generation fell from 40% to 3% in six years

✅ Rate rose to £18/tCO2 in 2015, boosting the coal-to-gas switch

✅ Added ~£39 to 2018 bills; imports via interconnectors eased prices

A tax on carbon dioxide emissions in Great Britain, introduced in 2013, has led to the proportion of electricity generated from coal falling from 40% to 3% over six years, a trend mirrored by global coal decline in power generation, according to research led by UCL.

British electricity generated from coal fell from 13.1 TWh (terawatt hours) in 2013 to 0.97 TWh in September 2019, and was replaced by other less emission-heavy forms of generation such as gas, as producers move away from coal in many markets. The decline in coal generation accelerated substantially after the tax was increased in 2015.

In the report, 'The Value of International Electricity Trading', researchers from UCL and the University of Cambridge also showed that the tax—called Carbon Price Support—added on average £39 to British household electricity bills, within the broader context of UK net zero policies shaping the energy transition, collecting around £740m for the Treasury, in 2018.

Academics researched how the tax affected electricity flows to connected countries and interconnector (the large cables connecting the countries) revenue between 2015—when the tax was increased to £18 per tonne of carbon dioxide—and 2018. Following this increase, the share of coal-fired electricity generation fell from 28% in 2015 to 5% in 2018, reaching 3% by September 2019. Increased electricity imports from the continent, alongside the EU electricity demand outlook across member states, reduced the price impact in the UK, and meant that some of the cost was paid through a slight increase in continental electricity prices (mainly in France and the Netherlands).

Project lead Dr. Giorgio Castagneto Gissey (Bartlett Institute for Sustainable Resources, UCL) said: "Should EU countries also adopt a high carbon tax we would likely see huge carbon emission reductions throughout the Continent, as we've seen in Great Britain over the last few years."

Lead author, Professor David Newbery (University of Cambridge), said: "The Carbon Price Support provides a clear signal to our neighbours of its efficacy at reducing CO2 emissions."

The Carbon Price Support was introduced in England, Scotland and Wales at a rate of £4.94 per tonne of carbon dioxide-equivalent and is now capped at £18 until 2021.The tax is one part of the Total Carbon Price, which also includes the price of EU Emissions Trading System permits and reflects global CO2 emissions trends shaping policy design.

Report co-author Bowei Guo (University of Cambridge) said: "The Carbon Price Support has been instrumental in driving coal off the grid, but we show how it also creates distortions to cross-border trade, making a case for EU-wide adoption."

Professor Michael Grubb (Bartlett Institute for Sustainable Resources, UCL) said: "Great Britain's electricity transition is a monumental achievement of global interest, and has also demonstrated the power of an effective carbon price in lowering dependence on electricity generated from coal."

The overall report on electricity trading also covers the value of EU interconnectors to Great Britain, measures the efficiency of cross-border electricity trading and considers the value of post-Brexit decoupling from EU electricity markets, setting these findings against the global energy transition underway.

Published today, the report annex focusing on the Carbon Price Support was produced by UCL to focus on the impact of the tax on British energy bills, with comparisons to Canadian climate policy debates informing grid impacts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

California Wildfire Smoke Impact on Solar reduces photovoltaic output, as particulate pollution, soot, and haze dim sunlight and foul panels, cutting utility-scale generation and grid reliability across CAISO during peak demand and heatwaves.

Key Points

How smoke and soot cut solar irradiance and foul panels, slashing PV generation and straining CAISO grid operations.

✅ Smoke blocks sunlight; soot deposition reduces panel efficiency.

✅ CAISO reported ~30% drop versus July during peak smoke.

✅ Longer fire seasons threaten solar reliability and capacity planning.

Smoke from California’s unprecedented wildfires was so bad that it cut a significant chunk of solar power production in the state, even as U.S. solar generation rose in 2022 nationwide. Solar power generation dropped off by nearly a third in early September as wildfires darkened the skies with smoke, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

Those fires create thick smoke, laden with particles that block sunlight both when they’re in the air and when they settle onto solar panels. In the first two weeks of September, soot and smoke caused solar-powered electricity generation to fall 30 percent compared to the July average, according to the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), which oversees nearly all utility-scale solar energy in California, where wind and solar curtailments have been rising amid grid constraints. It was a 13.4 percent decrease from the same period last year, even though solar capacity in the state has grown about 5 percent since September 2019.

California depends on solar installations for nearly 20 percent of its electricity generation, and has more solar capacity than the next five US states trailing it combined as it works to manage its solar boom sustainably. It will need even more renewable power to meet its goal of 100 percent clean electricity generation by 2045, building on a recent near-100% renewable milestone that underscored the transition. The state’s emphasis on solar power is part of its long-term efforts to avoid more devastating effects of climate change. But in the short term, California’s renewables are already grappling with rising temperatures.

Two records were smashed early this September that contributed to the loss of solar power. California surpassed 2 million acres burned in a single fire season for the first time (1.7 million more acres have burned since then). And on September 15th, small particle pollution reached the highest levels recorded since 2000, according to the California Air Resources Board. Winds that stoked the flames also drove pollution from the largest fires in Northern California to Southern California, where there are more solar farms.

Smaller residential and commercial solar systems were affected, too, and solar panels during grid blackouts typically shut off for safety, although smoke was the primary issue here. “A lot of my systems were producing zero power,” Steve Pariani, founder of the solar installation company Solar Pro Energy Systems, told the San Mateo Daily Journal in September.

As the planet heats up, California’s fire seasons have grown longer, and blazes are tearing through more land than ever before, while grid operators are also seeing rising curtailments as they integrate more renewables. For both utilities and smaller solar efforts, wildfire smoke will continue to darken solar energy’s otherwise bright future, even as it becomes the No. 3 renewable source in the U.S. by generation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

La Romaine Hydroelectric Complex anchors Quebec's hydropower expansion, showcasing Hydro-Québec ingenuity, clean energy, electrification, and grid capacity gains along the North Shore's Romaine River to power industry and nearly 470,000 homes.

Key Points

A four-station, $7.4B hydro project on Quebec's Romaine River producing 8 TWh a year for electrification and industry.

✅ Generates 8 TWh yearly, powering about 470,000 homes

✅ Largest Quebec hydro build since James Bay project

✅ Key to clean energy, grid capacity, and electrification

Quebec Premier François Legault has inaugurated the la Romaine hydroelectric complex on the province's North Shore.

The newly inaugurated Romaine hydroelectric complex could serve as a model for future projects, such as the Carillon Generating Station investment now planned in the province, Legault said.

"It brings me a lot of pride. It is truly the symbol of Quebec ingenuity," he said as he opened the vast power plant.

Legault was accompanied at today's event by Jean Charest, who was Quebec premier when construction began in 2009, as well as Hydro-Québec president and CEO Michael Sabia. 

La Romaine is comprised of four power stations and is the largest hydro project constructed in the province since the Robert Bourassa generation facility, which was commissioned in 1979. It is the biggest hydro installation since the James Bay project, bolstering Hydro-Québec's hydropower capacity across the grid today.

The construction work for Romaine-4 was supposed to finish in 2020, but it was delayed the COVID-19 pandemic, the death of four workers due to security flaws and soil decomposition problems. 

The $7.4-billion la Romaine complex can produce eight terawatt hours of electricity per year, enough to power nearly 470,000 homes.

It generates its power from the Romaine River, located north of Havre-St-Pierre, Que., near the Labrador border, where long-standing Newfoundland and Labrador tensions over Quebec's projects sometimes resurface today.

Legault said that Quebec still doesn't have enough electricity to meet demand from industry, including recent allocations of electricity for industrial projects across the province, and Quebecers need to consider more ways to boost the province's ability to power future projects. The premier has said previously that demand is expected to surge by an additional 100 terawatt-hours by 2050 — half the current annual output of the provincially owned utility.

Legault's environmental plan of reducing greenhouse gases and achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 hinges on increased electrification and a strategy to wean off fossil fuels provincewide, so the electricity needs for transport and industry will be massive.

An updated strategic plan from Hydro-Quebec will be presented in November outlining those needs, president and CEO Michael Sabia told reporters on Thursday, after recent deals with NB Power underscored interprovincial demand.

Legault said the report will trigger a broader debate on energy transition and how the province can be a leader in the green economy. He said he wasn't ruling out any potential power sources — except for a return to nuclear power at this stage.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ecofiscal Commission EV Policy Shift examines carbon pricing limits, endorsing signal boosters like subsidies, EV incentives, and coal bans, amid advisory changes and public pushback, to accelerate emissions cuts beyond market-based taxes and regulations.

Key Points

An updated stance recognizing carbon pricing limits and backing EV incentives, subsidies, and rules to reduce emissions.

✅ Carbon pricing plus subsidies, EV incentives

✅ Advisory shift; Jack Mintz departs

✅ Focus on emissions cuts, coal power bans

Something strange happened at the Ecofiscal Commission recently. Earlier this month, the carbon-tax advocacy group featured on its website as one of its advisers the renowned Canadian economist (and FP Comment columnist) Jack M. Mintz. The other day, suddenly and without fanfare, Mintz was gone from the website, and the commission’s advisory board.

Advisers come and advisers go, of course, but it turns out there was an impetus for Mintz’s departure. The Ecofiscal Commission in its latest report, dropped just before Canada Day, seemingly shifted from its position that carbon prices were so excellent at mimicking market forces that the tax could repeal and replace virtually the entire vast expensive gallimaufry of subsidies, caps, rules and regulations that are costing Canada a fortune in business and bureaucrats. As some Ecofiscal commissioners wrote just a few months ago, policies that “dictate specific technologies or methods for reducing emissions constrain private choice and increase costs” and were a bad idea.

But, in this latest report, the commission is now musing about the benefits of carbon-tax “signal boosters”: that is, EV subsidies and rules to, for instance, get people to start buying electric vehicles (EVs), as well as bans on coal-fired power. “Even well designed carbon pricing can have limitations,” rationalized the commission. Mintz said he had “misgivings” about the change of tack. He decided it best if he focus his advisory energies elsewhere.

It’s hard to blame the commission for falling like everyone else for the electric-car mania that’s sweeping the nation and the world. Electric cars offer a sexiness that dreary old carbon taxes can never hope to match — especially in light of a new Angus Reid poll last week that showed the majority of Canadians now want governments to shelve any plans for carbon taxes.

So far, because nobody’s really driving these miracle machines, said mania has been limited to breathless news reports about how the electric-vehicle revolution is about to rock our world. EVs comprise just two-tenths of a per cent of all passenger vehicles in North America, despite the media’s endless hype and efforts of green-obsessed governments to cover much of the price tag, like Ontario’s $14,000 rebate for Tesla buyers. In Europe, where virtue-signalling urban environmentalism is the coolest, they’re not feeling the vehicular electricity much more: EVs account for barely one per cent of personal vehicles in France, the U.K. and Germany. When Hong Kong cancelled Tesla rebates in April, sales fell to zero.

Going by the ballyhoo, you’d think EVs were at an inflection point and an unstoppable juggernaut. But it’s one that has yet to even get started. In his 2011 State of the Union address, then president Barack Obama predicted one million electric cars on the road by 2015. Four years later, there wasn’t even a third that many. California offered so many different subsidies for electric vehicles that low-income families could get rebates of up to US$13,500, but it still isn’t even close to reaching its target of having zero-emission vehicles make up 15 per cent of California auto sales by 2025, being stuck at three per cent since 2014. Ontario’s Liberal government last year announced to much laughter its plan to ensure that every family would have at least one zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) by 2024, and Quebec made a plan to make ZEVs worth 15.5 per cent of sales by 2020, while Ottawa’s 2035 EV mandate attracts criticism too. Let’s see how that’s going: Currently, ZEVs make up 0.16 per cent of new vehicle sales in Ontario and 0.38 per cent in Quebec.

The latest sensational but bogus EV news out last week was France’s government announcing the “end of the sale of gasoline and diesel cars by 2040,” and Volvo apparently announcing that as of 2019, all its models would be “electric.” Both announcements made international headlines. Both are baloney. France provided no actual details about this plan (will it literally become a crime to sell a gasoline car? Will hybrids, run partly on gasoline, be allowed?), but more importantly, as automotive writer Ed Wiseman pointed out in The Guardian, a lot will happen in technology and automotive use over the next 23 years that France has no way to predict, with changes in self-driving cars, public car-sharing and fuel technologies. Imagine making rules for today’s internet back in 1994.

Volvo, meanwhile, looked to be recycling and repackaging years-old news to seize on today’s infatuation with electric vehicles to burnish its now Chinese-owned brand. Since 2010, Volvo’s plan has been to focus on engines that were partly electric, with electric turbochargers, but still based on gasoline. Volvo doesn’t actually have an all-electric model, but the gasoline-swigging engine of its popular XC90 SUV is, partly, electrical. When Volvo said all its models would in two years be “electric,” it meant this kind of engine, not that it was phasing out the internal-combustion gasoline engine. But that is what it wanted reporters to think, and judging by all the massive and inaccurate coverage, it worked.

The real story being missed is just how pathetic things look right now for electric cars. Gasoline prices in the U.S. turned historically cheap in 2015 and stayed cheap, icing demand for gasless cars. Tesla, whose founder’s self-promotion had made the niche carmaker magically more valuable than powerhouses like Ford and GM, haemorrhaged US$12 billion in market value last week after tepid sales figures brought some investors back to Earth, even as the company’s new Model 3 began rolling off the line.

Not helping is that environmental claims about environmental cars are falling apart. In June, Tesla was rocked by a controversial Swedish study that found that making one of its car batteries released as much CO2 as eight years of gasoline-powered driving. And Bloomberg reported last week on a study by Chinese engineers that found that electric vehicles, because of battery manufacturing and charging by fossil-fuel-powered electricity sources, emit 50-per-cent more carbon than do internal-combustion engines. Still, the electric-vehicle hype not only continues unabated, it gets bigger and louder every day. If some car company figures out how to harness it, we’d finally have a real automotive revolution on our hands.

Kevin Libin, Financial Post

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News