Industry looks to LEDs for homes

UK Electricity Interconnectors secure capacity market subsidies, supporting winter reliability with seabed cables to France and Belgium via the Channel Tunnel, lowering consumer costs, squeezing coal, and challenging new gas plants through cross-border energy trading.

Key Points

High-voltage cables linking Britain to Europe, securing backup capacity, cutting costs and boosting winter reliability.

✅ Won capacity market contracts at record-low prices

✅ Cables to France and Belgium via Channel Tunnel, seabed routes

✅ Squeezes coal, challenges new gas; renewables may join market

New electricity cables across the Channel to France and Belgium will be a key part of keeping Britain’s lights on during winter amid record electricity prices across Europe in the early 2020s, after their owners won backup power subsidies in a government auction this week.

For the first time, interconnector operators successfully bid for a slice of hundreds of millions’ worth of contracts in the capacity market. That will help cut costs for consumers, given how electricity is priced in Europe today, and squeeze out old coal power plants.

Three new interconnectors are currently being built to Europe, almost doubling existing capacity, with one along the Channel Tunnel and two on the seabed: one between Kent and Zeebrugge and one from Hampshire to Normandy. 

The interconnectors were success stories in this week’s capacity auction, which saw power firms bid to provide backup electricity in the winter of 2021/22. Prices for the four-year contracts hit a record low of £8.40 per kilowatt per year, which analysts described as a shock and well below expectations.

One industry source said the figure was “miles away” from what is needed to encourage companies to build big new gas power stations, which some argue are necessary to fill the gap when the UK’s ageing nuclear reactors close as Europe loses nuclear power across the region over the next decade.

While bad news for those firms, the low price is good for consumers. The subsidies will add about £525m to energy bills, or £5.68 for the average household, compared with £11 for the year before, according to analysts Cornwall Insight.

Existing gas power stations scooped up most of the contracts, but new gas ones lost out, as did several coal plants. Battery storage plants, a standout success in the last auction, fared comparatively poorly after changes to the rules.

Experts at Bernstein bank said the the misses by coal meant that around half the UK’s remaining coal power capacity could close from October 2019, when existing capacity market contracts run out. Chaitanya Kumar, policy adviser at thinktank Green Alliance, said: “Coal’s exit from the UK’s energy system just moved a step closer as coal contracts fell by half compared with last year.”

Tom Edwards, an analyst at Cornwall Insight, said that more interconnectors were likely to bid into future rounds of the capacity market, such as the cable being laid between Norway and the UK. Relying on foreign power supplies was fine, he said, provided Brexit did not make energy trading more difficult and the interconnectors delivered at times of need, where events like Irish grid price spikes illustrate the stress points.

However, one industry source, who wants to see new gas plants built in the UK, said the results showed that the system was not working, amid UK peak power prices that have climbed in recent trading. “That self-sufficiency doesn’t seem to be a priority at a time when we’re breaking away from Europe is a bit weird,” they said.

But the prospects for new gas plants in future rounds of the capacity market look bleak. They will very likely face a new source of competition next year, if energy regulator Ofgem approves a proposal to allow renewables to compete too.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Franco-German Nuclear Power Divide shapes EU energy policy, electricity market reform, and decarbonization strategies, as Paris backs reactors and state subsidies while Berlin prioritizes renewables, hydrogen, and energy security after Russian gas shocks.

Key Points

A policy rift over nuclear shaping EU market reform, subsidies, and the balance between reactors and renewables.

✅ Nuclear in EU targets vs. renewables-first strategy

✅ Market design disputes over long-term power prices

✅ Energy security after Russian gas; hydrogen definitions

Near the French village of Fessenheim, facing Germany across the Rhine, a nuclear power station stands dormant. The German protesters that once demanded the site’s closure have decamped, in a sign of Europe's nuclear decline, and the last watts were produced three years ago. 

But disagreements over how the plant from 1977 should be repurposed persist, speaking to a much deeper divide over nuclear power, which Eon chief's warning to Germany underscored, between the two countries on either side of the river’s banks.

German officials have disputed a proposal to turn it into a centre to treat metals exposed to low levels of radioactivity, Fessenheim’s mayor Claude Brender says. “They are not on board with anything that might in some way make the nuclear industry more acceptable,” he adds.

France and Germany’s split over nuclear power is a tale of diverging mindsets fashioned over decades, including since the Chernobyl disaster in USSR-era Ukraine. But it has now become a major faultline in a touchy relationship between Europe’s two biggest economies.

Their stand-off over how to treat nuclear in a series of EU reforms has consequences for how Europe plans to advance towards cleaner energy. It will also affect how the bloc secures power supplies as the region weans itself off Russian gas, even though nuclear would do little for the gas issue, and how it provides its industry with affordable energy to compete with the US and China. 

“There can be squabbles between partners. But we’re not in a retirement home today squabbling over trivial matters. Europe is in a serious situation,” says Eric-André Martin, a specialist in Franco-German relations at French think-tank IFRI. 

France, which produces two-thirds of its power from nuclear plants and has plans for more reactors, is fighting for the low-carbon technology to be factored into its targets for reducing emissions and for leeway to use state subsidies to fund the sector.

For Germany, which closed its last nuclear plants this year and, having turned its back on nuclear, has been particularly shaken by its former reliance on Russian gas, there’s concern that a nuclear drive will detract from renewable energy advances.

But there is also an economic subtext in a region still reeling from an energy crisis last year, reviving arguments for a needed nuclear option for climate in Germany, when prices spiked and laid bare how vulnerable households and manufacturers could become.

Berlin is wary that Paris would benefit more than its neighbours if it ends up being able to guarantee low power prices from its large nuclear output as a result of new EU rules on electricity markets, amid talk of a possible U-turn on the phaseout, people close to talks between the two countries say.

Ministers on both sides have acknowledged there is a problem. “The conflict is painful. It’s painful for the two governments as well as for our [EU] partners,” Sven Giegold, state secretary at the German economy and climate action ministry, where debates about whether a nuclear resurgence is possible persist, tells the Financial Times. 

Agnès Pannier-Runacher, France’s energy minister, says she wants to “get out of the realm of the emotional and move past the considerable misunderstandings that have accumulated in this discussion”.

In a joint appearance in Hamburg last week, German chancellor Olaf Scholz and French president Emmanuel Macron made encouraging noises over their ability to break the latest deadlock: a disagreement over the design of the EU’s electricity market. Ministers had been due to agree a plan in June but will now meet on October 17 to discuss the reform, aimed at stabilising long-term prices.

But the French and German impasse on nuclear has already slowed down debates on key EU policies such as rules on renewable energy and how hydrogen should be produced. Smaller member states are becoming impatient. The delay on the market design is “a big Franco-German show of incompetence again”, says an energy ministry official from another EU country who requested anonymity. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Texas EV Registration Fee adds a $200 annual charge under Senate Bill 505, offsetting lost gasoline tax revenue to the State Highway Fund, impacting electric vehicle owners at registration and renewals across Texas.

Key Points

A $200 yearly charge on electric vehicles to replace lost gasoline tax revenue and support Texas Highway Fund road work.

✅ $200 due at registration or renewal; $400 upfront on new EVs.

✅ Enacted by Senate Bill 505 to offset lost gasoline tax revenue.

✅ Advocates propose mileage-based fees; limited $2,500 rebates exist.

Plano resident Tony Federico bought his Tesla five years ago in part because he hated spending lots of money on gas, and Supercharger billing changes have also influenced charging expenses. But that financial calculus will change slightly on Sept. 1, when Texas will start charging electric vehicle drivers an additional fee of $200 each year.

“It just seems like it’s arbitrary, with no real logic behind it,” said Federico, 51, who works in information technology. “But I’m going to have to pay it.”

Earlier this year, state lawmakers passed Senate Bill 505, which requires electric vehicle owners to pay the fee when they register a vehicle or renew their registration, even as fights for control over charging continue among utilities, automakers and retailers. It’s being imposed because lawmakers said EV drivers weren’t paying their fair share into a fund that helps cover road construction and repairs across Texas.

The cost will be especially high for those who purchase a new electric vehicle and have to pay two years of registration, or $400, up front.

Texas agencies estimated in a 2020 report that the state lost an average of $200 per year in federal and state gasoline tax dollars when an electric vehicle replaced a gas-fueled one. The agencies called the fee “the most straightforward” remedy.

Gasoline taxes go to the State Highway Fund, which the Texas Department of Transportation calls its “primary funding source.” Electric vehicle drivers don’t pay those taxes, though, because they don’t use gasoline.

Still, EV drivers do use the roads. And while electric vehicles make up a tiny portion of cars in Texas for now, that fraction is expected to increase, raising concerns about state power grids in the years ahead.

Many environmental and consumer advocates agreed with lawmakers that EV drivers should pay into the highway fund but argued over how much, and debates over fairer vehicle taxes are surfacing abroad as well.

Some thought the state should set the fee lower to cover only the lost state tax dollars, rather than both the state and federal money, because federal officials may devise their own scheme. Others argued the state should charge nothing because EVs help reduce greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change and can offer budget benefits for many owners.

“We urgently need to get more electric vehicles on the road,” said Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas. “Any increased fee could create an additional barrier for Texans, and particularly more moderate- to low-income Texans, to make that transition.”

Tom “Smitty” Smith, the executive director of the Texas Electric Transportation Resources Alliance, advocated for a fee based on how many miles a person drove their electric car, which would better mirror how the gas taxes are assessed.

Texas has a limited incentive that could offset the cost: It offers rebates of up to $2,500 for up to 2,000 new hydrogen fuel cell, electric or hybrid vehicles every two years. Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen’s Texas office director, recommended that the state expand the rebates, noting that state-level EV benefits can be significant.

In the Houston area, dealer Steven Wolf isn’t worried about the fee deterring potential customers from buying the electric Ford F-150 Lightning and Mustang Mach-E vehicles he sells. Electric cars are already more expensive than comparable gasoline-fueled cars, and charging networks compete for drivers, he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Alberta Ends Renewable Energy Moratorium, accelerating wind and solar deployment while prioritizing grid stability, reliability, and infrastructure upgrades to attract investment, cut emissions, meet climate targets, and integrate renewables into the provincial power system.

Key Points

It is Alberta's decision to lift a pause on new wind and solar projects while enhancing grid reliability.

✅ Resumes wind and solar development across Alberta.

✅ Focuses on grid stability and infrastructure upgrades.

✅ Aims to attract investment and meet climate targets.

The Alberta government has announced the end of a temporary suspension on the development of new renewable energy projects, as the power grid operator prepares to accept green energy bids across the market. This pause, which had been in place since May 2023, was initially implemented to evaluate the effects of rapid growth in renewable energy installations on the province's power grid and overall energy system. However, the decision to lift the moratorium reflects a shift in the government’s approach to balancing energy needs and environmental goals.

The suspension was introduced amid concerns that the swift expansion of wind and solar energy projects, including documented challenges with solar energy expansion in the province, could place undue stress on Alberta's electrical grid and infrastructure. Officials expressed worries about the ability of the grid to handle the increased load and the potential need for upgrades to accommodate new renewable energy sources. The government aimed to assess the implications of this growth and determine appropriate measures to ensure that the energy system could support both existing and future demands.

The moratorium drew significant criticism from various sectors, including renewable energy companies, environmental advocates, and local communities. Critics argued that the pause was detrimental to Alberta's efforts to transition to cleaner energy sources and meet climate targets, citing cases like TransAlta scrapping a wind farm amid policy uncertainty. They pointed out that halting projects could delay investments and job creation associated with the renewable energy sector, potentially impeding progress towards a more sustainable energy future.

In response to these concerns, the Alberta government conducted further reviews and consultations. The decision to cancel the pause reflects the government’s recognition of the importance of advancing renewable energy initiatives while also addressing the need for grid stability and infrastructure development. By ending the moratorium, the government aims to support the continued growth of renewable energy projects and maintain momentum in the shift towards greener energy solutions.

The lifting of the moratorium is expected to have a positive impact on the renewable energy industry in Alberta. Several planned projects that were put on hold can now proceed, leading to renewed investment and economic benefits, including a renewable energy surge that could power 4,500 jobs across the province. The government’s decision signals a commitment to integrating renewable energy sources into the provincial grid in a way that ensures both reliability and sustainability.

Going forward, the Alberta government plans to implement measures to better manage the integration of renewable energy into the existing power infrastructure. This includes addressing any potential challenges related to grid capacity and ensuring that the growth of renewable energy projects aligns with the province's overall energy strategy, as recent federal procurement such as a $500M green electricity contract with an Edmonton company underscores demand that integration efforts must accommodate. The goal is to create a balanced approach that supports the development of clean energy while maintaining the stability and efficiency of the energy system.

The end of the moratorium aligns with Alberta’s broader objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote environmental sustainability within a province recognized as a powerhouse for both green energy and fossil fuels in Canada. The government’s approach reflects a willingness to adapt policies and strategies in response to evolving industry needs and environmental priorities. By removing the pause, Alberta demonstrates its commitment to fostering a diverse and resilient energy sector that can meet both current and future demands.

The decision to cancel the moratorium is also seen as a move to reinforce Alberta’s position as a leader in renewable energy development. With the lifting of restrictions, the province can continue to attract investment in clean energy projects, as neighboring jurisdictions such as B.C. streamline clean energy approvals to accelerate deployment, enhance its reputation as a progressive energy market, and contribute to global efforts to address climate change.

In summary, the Alberta government’s decision to lift the pause on renewable energy projects represents a significant shift in its approach to energy policy. The move reflects an acknowledgment of the importance of advancing renewable energy while addressing the practical challenges associated with grid management and infrastructure development. By ending the moratorium, Alberta aims to support the growth of clean energy initiatives and maintain its commitment to sustainability and environmental responsibility.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Electricity Security and Firm Capacity underpin reliable supply, balancing variable renewables with grid flexibility via gas plants, nuclear power, hydropower, battery storage, and demand response, safeguarding telework, e-commerce, and critical healthcare operations.

Key Points

Ability to meet demand by combining firm generation and flexible resources, keeping grids stable as renewables grow.

✅ Balances variable renewables with dispatchable generation

✅ Rewards flexibility via capacity markets and ancillary services

✅ Enhances grid stability for critical loads during low demand

The huge disruption caused by the coronavirus crisis, and the low-carbon electricity lessons drawn from it, has highlighted how much modern societies rely on electricity and how firm capacity, such as that provided by nuclear power, is a crucial element in ensuring supply, International Energy Agency (IEA) Executive Director Fatih Birol said.

In a commentary posted on LinkedIn, Birol said: "The coronavirus crisis reminds us of electricity's indispensable role in our lives. It's also providing insights into how that role is set to expand and evolve in the years and decades ahead."

Reliable electricity supply is crucial for teleworking, e-commerce, operating ventilators and other medical equipment, among all its other uses, he said, adding that the hundreds of millions of people who live without any access to electricity are far more vulnerable to disease and other dangers.

"Although new forms of short-term flexibility such as battery storage are on the rise, and initiatives like UK home virtual power plants are emerging, most electricity systems rely on natural gas power plants - which can quickly ramp generation up or down at short notice - to provide flexibility, underlining the critical role of gas in clean energy transitions," Birol said.

"Today, most gas power plants lose money if they are used only from time to time to help the system adjust to shifts in demand. The lower levels of electricity demand during the current crisis are adding to these pressures. Hydropower, an often forgotten workhorse of electricity generation, remains an essential source of flexibility.

"Firm capacity, including nuclear power in countries that have chosen to retain it as an option, is a crucial element in ensuring a secure electricity supply even as soaring electricity and coal use complicate transitions. Policy makers need to design markets that reward different sources for their contributions to electricity security, which can enable them to establish viable business models."

In most economies that have taken strong confinement measures in response to the coronavirus - and for which the IEA has available data - electricity demand has declined by around 15%, largely as a result of factories and businesses halting operations, and in New York City load patterns were notably reshaped during lockdowns. If electricity demand falls quickly while weather conditions remain the same, the share of variable renewables like wind and solar can become higher than normal, and low-emissions sources are set to cover almost all near-term growth.

"With weaker electricity demand, power generation capacity is abundant. However, electricity system operators have to constantly balance demand and supply in real time. People typically think of power outages as happening when surging electricity demand overwhelms supply. But in fact, some of the most high-profile blackouts in recent times took place during periods of low demand," Birol said.

"When electricity from wind and solar is satisfying the majority of demand, and renewables poised to eclipse coal by 2025 are reshaping the mix, systems need to maintain flexibility in order to be able to ramp up other sources of generation quickly when the pattern of supply shifts, such as when the sun sets. A very high share of wind and solar in a given moment also makes the maintenance of grid stability more challenging."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News