SaskPower invests to support demand growth, renew aging grid

EV Charging Grid Readiness addresses how rising EV adoption, larger batteries, and fast charging affect electric utilities, using vehicle-to-grid, energy storage, mobile and temporary chargers, and smart charging to mitigate distribution stress.

Key Points

Planning and tech to manage EV load growth with V2G, storage and smart charging to avoid overloads on distribution grids.

✅ Lithium-ion costs may drop 60%, enabling new charger models

✅ Mobile and temporary chargers buffer local distribution peaks

✅ Smart charging and V2G defer transformer and feeder upgrades

The impacts of COVID-19 likely mean flat electric vehicle (EV) sales this year, but a trio of new reports say the long-term outlook is for strong growth — which means the electric grid and especially state power grids will need to respond.

As EV adoption grows, newer vehicles will put greater stress on the electric grid due to their larger batteries and capacity for faster charging, according to Rhombus Energy Solutions, while a DOE lab finds US electricity demand could rise 38% as EV adoption scales. A new white paper from the company predicts the cost of lithium-ion batteries will drop by 60% over the next decade, helping enable a new set of charging solutions.

Meanwhile, mobile and temporary EV charging will grow from 0.5% to 2% of the charging market by 2030, according to new Guidehouse research. The overall charging market is expected to reach reach almost $16 billion in revenues in 2020 and more than $60 billion by 2030. ​A third report finds long-range EVs are growing their share of the market as well, and charging them could cause stress to electric distribution systems. 

"One can expect that the number of EVs in fleets will grow very rapidly over the next ten years," according to Rhombus' report. But that means many fleet staging areas will have trouble securing sufficient charging capacity as electric truck fleets scale up.

"Given the amount of time it takes to add new megawatt-level power feeds in most cities (think years), fleet EVs will run into a significant 'power crisis' by 2030," according to Rhombus.

"Grid power availability will become a significant problem for fleets as they increase the number of electric vehicles they operate," Rhombus CEO Rick Sander said in a statement. "Integrating energy storage with vehicle-to-grid capable chargers and smart [energy management system] solutions as seen in California grid stability efforts is a quick and effective mitigation strategy for this issue."

Along with energy storage, Guidehouse says a new, more flexible approach to charger deployment enabled by grid coordination strategies will help meet demand. That means chargers deployed by a van or other mobile stations, and "temporary" chargers that can help fleets expand capacity. 

According to Guidehouse, the temporary units "are well positioned to de-risk large investments in stationary charging infrastructure" while also providing charge point networks and service providers "with new capabilities to flexibly supply predictable changes in EV transportation behaviors and demand surges."

"Mobile charging is a bit of a new area in the EV charging scene. It primarily leverages batteries to make chargers mobile, but it doesn't necessarily have to," Guidehouse Senior Research Analyst Scott Shepard told Utility Dive. 

"The biggest opportunity is with the temporary charging format," said Shepard. "The bigger units are meant to be located at a certain site for a period of time. Those units are interesting because they create a little more scale-ability for sites and a little risk mitigation when it comes to investing in a site."

"Utilities could use temporary chargers as a way to provide more resilient service, using these chargers in line with on-site generation," Shepard said.

Increasing rates of EV adoption, combined with advances in battery size and charging rates, "will impact electric utility distribution infrastructure at a higher rate than previously projected," according to new analysis from FleetCarma.

The charging company conducted a study of over 3,900 EVs, illustrating the rapid change in vehicle capabilities in just the last five years. According to FleetCarma, today's EVs use twice as much energy and draw it at twice the power level. The long-range EV has increased as a proportion of new electric vehicle sales from 14% in 2014 to 66% in 2019 in the United States, it found.

Long-range EVs "are very different from older electric vehicles: they are driven more, they consume more energy, they draw power at a higher level and they are less predictable," according to FleetCarma.

Guidehouse analysts say grid modernization efforts and energy storage can help smooth the impacts of charging larger vehicles. 

Mobile and temporary charging solutions can act as a "buffer" to the distribution grid, according to Guidehouse's report, allowing utilities to avoid or defer some transmission and distribution upgrade costs that could be required due to stress on the grid from newer vehicles.

"At a high level, there's enough power and energy to supply EVs with proper management in place," said Shepard. "And in a lot of different locations, those charging deployments will be built in a way that protects the grid. Public fast charging, large commercial sites, they're going to have the right infrastructure embedded."

"But for certain areas of the grid where there is low visibility, there is the potential for grid disruption and questions about whether the UK grid can cope with EV demand," said Shepard. "This has been on the mind of utilities but never realized: overwhelming residential transformers."

As EVs with higher charging and energy capacities are connected to the grid, Shepard said, "you are going to start to see some of those residential systems come under pressure, and probably see increased incidences of having to upgrade transformers." Some residential upgrades can be deferred through smarter charging programs, he added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

UK Peak Power Prices surged as low wind speeds forced National Grid to rely on gas-fired plants and coal generation, amid soaring wholesale gas prices and weak wind generation during the energy crisis.

Key Points

UK Peak Power Prices are electricity costs at peak hours, driven by wind output, gas reliance, and market dynamics.

✅ Spikes when wind generation drops and demand rises.

✅ Driven by gas-fired plants, coal backup, and wholesale gas prices.

✅ Moderate as wind output recovers and interconnectors supply.

Low wind speeds pushed peak hour power prices to the second highest level for at least three years on Monday, a move consistent with UK electricity prices hitting a 10-year high earlier this year, as Britain’s grid was forced to increase its reliance on gas-fired power plants and draw on coal generation.

Calm weather this year has exacerbated the energy price crisis in the UK, as gas-fired power stations have had to pick up the slack from wind farms. Energy demand has surged as countries open up from pandemic restrictions, which together with lower supplies from Russia to western Europe, has sent wholesale gas prices soaring.

Power prices in the UK for the peak evening period between 5pm and 6pm on Monday surpassed £2,000 per megawatt hour, only the second time they have exceeded that level in recent years.

This was still below the levels reached at the height of the gas price crisis in mid-September, when they hit £2,500/MWh, according to the energy consultancy Cornwall Insight, whose records date back to 2018.

Low wind speeds were the main driver behind Monday’s price spike, although expectations of a pick-up in wind generation on Tuesday, after recent record wind generation days, should push them back down to similar levels seen in recent weeks, analysts said.

Despite the expansion of renewables, such as wind and solar, over the past decade, with instances of wind leading the power mix in recent months, gas remains the single biggest source of electricity generation in Britain, typically accounting for nearly 40 per cent of output.

At lunchtime on Monday, gas-fired power plants were producing nearly 55 per cent of electricity, while coal accounted for 3 per cent, reflecting more power from wind than coal in 2016 milestones. Britain’s wind farms were contributing 1.67 gigawatts or just over 4 per cent, according to data from the Drax Electrics Insights website. Over the past 12 months, wind farms have produced 21 per cent of the UK’s electricity on average.

National Grid, which manages the UK’s electricity grid, has been forced on a number of occasions in recent months to ask coal plants to fire up to help offset the loss of wind generation, after issuing a National Grid short supply warning to the market. The government announced in June that it planned to bring forward the closure of the remaining coal stations to the end of September 2024.

Ministers also committed this year to making Britain’s electricity grid “net zero carbon” by 2035, and milestones such as when wind was the main source underline the transition, although some analysts have pointed out that would not signal the end of gas generation.

Since the start of the energy crisis in August, 20 energy suppliers have gone bust as they have struggled to secure the electricity and gas needed to supply customers at record wholesale prices, with further failures expected in coming weeks.

Phil Hewitt, director of the consultancy EnAppSys, said Monday’s high prices would further exacerbate pressures on those energy suppliers that do not have adequate hedging strategies. “This winter is a good time to be a generator,” he added.

Energy companies including Orsted of Denmark and SSE of the UK have reported some of the lowest wind speeds for at least two decades this year, even though record output during Storm Malik highlighted the system's volatility.

According to weather modelling group Vortex, the strength of the wind blowing across northern Europe has fallen by as much as 15 per cent on average in places this year, which some scientists suggest could be due to climate change.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BC-Alberta Transmission Intertie enables clean hydro to balance wind and solar, expanding transmission capacity so Site C hydro can dispatch power, cut emissions, lower costs, and accelerate electrification across provincial grids under federal climate policy.

Key Points

A cross-provincial grid link using BC hydro to firm Alberta wind and solar, cutting emissions and costs.

✅ Balances variable renewables with dispatchable hydro from Site C.

✅ Enables power trade: peak exports, low-cost wind imports.

✅ Lowers decarbonization costs and supports electrification goals.

By Mark Jaccard

Lost in the news and noise of the federal government's newly announced $170-per-tonne carbon tax was a single, critical sentence in Canada's updated climate plan, one that signals a strategy that could serve as the cornerstone for a future free of greenhouse gas emissions.

"The government will work with provinces and territories to connect parts of Canada that have abundant clean hydroelectricity with parts that are currently more dependent on fossil fuels for electricity generation — including by advancing strategic intertie projects."

Why do we think this one sentence is so important? And what has it got to do with the controversial Site C project Site C electricity debate under construction in British Columbia?

The answer lies in the huge amount of electricity we'll need to generate in Canada to achieve our climate goals for 2030 and 2050. Even while we aggressively pursue energy efficiency, our electric cars, buses and perhaps trucks in Canada's net-zero race will need a huge amount of new electricity, as will our buildings and industries. 

Luckily, Canada is blessed with an electricity system that is the envy of the world — already over 80 per cent zero emission, the bulk being from flexible hydro-electricity, with a backbone of nuclear power largely in Ontario, a national electricity success and rapidly growing shares of cheap wind and solar. 

Provincial differences
Yet the story differs significantly from one province to another. While B.C.'s electricity is nearly emissions free, the opposite is true of its neighbour, Alberta, where more than 80 per cent still comes from fossil fuels. This, despite an impressive shift away from coal power in recent years.

Now imagine if B.C. and Alberta were one province.

This might sound like the start of a bad joke, or a horror movie to some, but it's the crux of new research by a trio of energy economists who put a fine point on the value of such co-operation.

The study, by Brett Dolter, Kent Fellows and Nic Rivers, takes a detailed look at the economic case for completing Site C, BC Hydro's controversial large hydro project under construction, and makes three key conclusions.

First, they argue Site C should likely not have been started in the first place. Only a narrow set of assumptions can now justify its total cost. But what's done is done, and absent a time machine, the decision to complete the dam rests on go-forward costs.

On that note, their second conclusion is no more optimistic. Considering the cost to complete the project, even accounting for avoiding termination costs should it be cancelled, they find the economics of completing Site C over-budget status to be weak. If the New York Times had a Site C needle in the style of the newspaper's election visual, it would be "leaning cancel" at this point.

In Alberta, more than 80 per cent of the electricity still comes from fossil fuels, despite an impressive shift away from coal power in recent years. (CBC)
But it is their third conclusion that stands out as worthy of attention. They argue there is a case for completing Site C if the following conditions are met:

B.C. and Alberta reduce their electricity sector emissions by more than 75 per cent (this really means Alberta, given B.C.'s already clean position); and

B.C. and Alberta expand their ability to move electricity between their respective provinces by building new transmission lines.

Let's deal with each of these in turn.

On Condition 1, we give an emphatic: YES! Reducing electricity emissions is an absolute must to meet climate pledges if Canada is to come even close to achieving its net-zero goals. As noted above, a clean electricity grid will be the cornerstone of a decarbonized economy as we generate a great deal more power to electrify everything from industrial processes to heating to transportation and more. 

Condition 2 is more challenging. Talk of increasing transmission connections across Canada, including Hydro-Québec's U.S. strategy has been ongoing for over 50 years, with little success to speak of. But this time might well be different. And the implications for a completed Site C, should the government go that route, are profound.

Wind and solar costs rapidly declining
Somewhat ironically, the case for Site C is made stronger by the rapidly declining costs of two of its apparent renewable competitors: wind and solar.

The cost of wind and solar generation has fallen by 70 per cent and 90 per cent, respectively, a dramatic decline in the past 10 years. No longer can these variable sources of power be derided as high cost; they are unequivocally the cheapest sources of raw energy in electricity systems today.

However, electricity system operators must deal with their "non-dispatchability," a seemingly complicated term that simply means they produce electricity only when the sun shines and the wind blows, which is not necessarily when electricity customers want their electricity delivered (dispatched) to them. And because of this characteristic, the value of dispatchable electricity sources, like a completed Site C, will grow as a complement to wind and solar. 

Thus, as Alberta's generation of cheap wind and solar grows, so too does the value of connecting it with the firm, dispatchable resources available in B.C.

Rather than displacing wind and solar, large hydro facilities with the ability to increase or decrease output on short notice can actually enable more investment in these renewable sources. Expanding the transmission connection, with Site C on one side of that line, becomes even more valuable.

Many in B.C. might read this and rightly ask themselves, why should we foot the bill for this costly project to help out Albertans? The answer is that it won't be charity — B.C. will get paid handsomely for the power it delivers in peak periods and will be able to import wind power at low prices from Alberta in other times. B.C. will benefit greatly from these gains of trade.

Turning to Alberta, why should Albertans support B.C. reaping these gains? The answer is two-fold.

First, Site C will actually enable more low-cost wind and solar to be built in Alberta due to hydro's ability to balance these non-dispatchable renewables. Jobs and economic opportunity will occur in Alberta from this renewable energy growth.

Second, while B.C. imports won't come cheap, they will be less costly than the decarbonization alternatives Alberta would need without B.C.'s flexible hydro, as the economists' study shows. This means lower overall costs to Alberta's power consumers.

A clear role for Ottawa
To be sure, there are challenges to increasing the connectedness of B.C. and Alberta's power systems, not least of which is BC Hydro being a regulated, government-owned monopoly while Alberta is a competitive market amongst private generators. Some significant accommodations in climate policy and grids will be needed to ensure both sides can compete and benefit from trade on an equal footing.

There is also the pesky matter of permitting and constructing thousands of kilometres of power lines. Getting linear energy infrastructure built in Canada has not exactly been our forte of late.

We are not naive to the significant challenges in such an approach, but it's not often that we see such a clear narrative for beneficial climate action that, when considered at the provincial level, is likely to be thwarted, but when considered more broadly can produce a big win.

It's the clearest example yet of a role for the federal government to bridge the gap, to facilitate the needed regulatory conversations, and, let's be frank, to bring money to the table to make the line happen. Neither provincial side is likely to do it on their own, nor, as history has shown, are they likely to do it together. 

For a government committed to reducing emissions, and with a justified emphasis on the electricity sector, the opportunity to expand the Alberta-B.C. transmission intertie, leveraging the flexibility of B.C.'s hydro with the abundance of wind and solar potential on the Prairies, offers a potential massive decarbonization win for Western Canada that is too good to ignore.

Mark Jaccard, a professor at Simon Fraser University, and Blake Shaffer, a professor at the University of Calgary

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Ontario Global Adjustment Charge faces constitutional scrutiny as a regulatory charge vs tax; Court of Appeal revives case over electricity pricing, feed-in tariff contracts, IESO policy, and hydro rate impacts on consumers and industry.

Key Points

A provincial electricity fee funding generator contracts, now central to a court fight over tax versus regulatory charge.

✅ Funds gap between market price and contracted generator rates

✅ At issue: regulatory charge vs tax under constitutional law

✅ Linked to feed-in tariff, IESO policy, and hydro rate hikes

Ontario’s court of appeal has decided that a constitutional challenge of a steep provincial electricity charge should get its day in court, overturning a lower-court judgment that had dismissed the legal bid.

Hamilton, Ont.-based National Steel Car Ltd. launched the challenge in 2017, saying Ontario’s so-called global adjustment charge was unconstitutional because it is a tax — not a valid regulatory charge — that was not passed by the legislature.

The global adjustment funds the difference between the province’s hourly electricity price and the price guaranteed under contracts to power generators. It is “the component that covers the cost of building new electricity infrastructure in the province, maintaining existing resources, as well as providing conservation and demand management programs,” the province’s Independent Electricity System Operator says.

However, the global adjustment now makes up most of the commodity portion of a household electricity bill, and its costs have ballooned, as regulators elsewhere consider a proposed 14% rate hike in Nova Scotia.

Ontario’s auditor general said in 2015 that global adjustment fees had increased from $650 million in 2006 to more than $7 billion in 2014. She added that consumers would pay $133 billion in global adjustment fees from 2015 to 2032, after having already paid $37 billion from 2006 to 2014.

National Steel Car, which manufactures steel rail cars and faces high electricity rates that hurt Ontario factories, said its global adjustment costs went from $207,260 in 2008 to almost $3.4 million in 2016, according to an Ontario Court of Appeal decision released on Wednesday.

The company claimed the global adjustment was a tax because one of its components funds electricity procurement contracts under a “feed-in tariff” program, or FIT, which National Steel Car called “the main culprit behind the dramatic price increases for electricity,” the decision said.

Ontario’s auditor general said the FIT program “paid excessive prices to renewable energy generators.” The program has been ended, but contracts awarded under it remain in place.

National Steel Car claimed the FIT program “was actually designed to accomplish social goals unrelated to the generation of electricity,” such as helping rural and indigenous communities, and was therefore a tax trying to help with policy goals.

“The appellant submits that the Policy Goals can be achieved by Ontario in several ways, just not through the electricity pricing formula,” the decision said.

National Steel Car also argued the global adjustment violated a provincial law that requires the government to hold a referendum for new taxes.

“The appellant’s principal claim is that the Global Adjustment was a ‘colourable attempt to disguise a tax as a regulatory charge with the purpose of funding the costs of the Policy Goals,’” the decision said. “The appellant pressed this argument before the motion judge and before this court. The motion judge did not directly or adequately address it.”

The Ontario government applied to have the challenge thrown out for having “no reasonable cause of action,” and a Superior Court judge did so in 2018, saying the global adjustment is not a tax.

National Steel Car appealed the decision, and the decision published Wednesday allowed the appeal, set aside the lower-court judgment, and will send the case back to Superior Court, where it could get a full hearing.

“The appellant’s claim is sufficiently plausible on the evidentiary record it put forward that the applications should not have been dismissed on a pleadings motion before the development of a full record,” wrote Justice Peter D. Lauwers. “It is not plain, obvious and beyond doubt that the Global Adjustment, and particularly the challenged component, is properly characterized as a valid regulatory charge and not as an impermissible tax.”

Jerome Morse of Morse Shannon LLP, one of National Steel Car’s lawyers, said the Ontario government would now have 60 days to decide whether to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“What the court has basically said is, ‘this is a plausible argument, here are the reasons why it’s plausible, there was no answer to this,’” Morse told the Financial Post.

Ontario and the IESO had supported the lower-court decision, but there has been a change in government since the challenge was first launched, with Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford replacing the Liberals and Kathleen Wynne in power. The Liberals had launched a plan aimed at addressing hydro costs before losing in a 2018 election, the main thrust of which had been to refinance global adjustment costs.

Wednesday’s decision states that “Ontario’s counsel advised the court that the current Ontario government ‘does not agree with the former government’s electricity procurement policy (since-repealed).’

“The government’s view is that: ‘The solution does not lie with the courts, but instead in the political arena with political actors,’” it adds.

A spokesperson for Ontario Energy Minister Greg Rickford said in an email that they are reviewing the decision but “as this matter is in the appeal period, it would be inappropriate to comment.” 

Ontario had also requested to stay the matter so a regulator, the Ontario Energy Board, could weigh in, while the Nova Scotia regulator approved a 14% hike in a separate case.

“However, Ontario only sought this relief from the motion judge in the alternative, and given the motion judge’s ultimate decision, she did not rule on the stay,” Thursday’s decision said. “It would be premature for this court to rule on the issue, although it seems incongruous for Ontario to argue that the Superior Court is the convenient forum in which to seek to dismiss the applications as meritless, but that it is not the convenient forum for assessing the merits of the applications.”

National Steel Car’s challenge bears a resemblance to the constitutional challenges launched by Ontario and other provinces over the federal government’s carbon tax, but Justice Lauwers wrote “that the federal legislative scheme under consideration in those cases is distinctly different from the legislation at issue in this appeal.”

“Nothing in those decisions impacts this appeal,” the judge added.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric power market crisis highlights grid reliability risks as coal and nuclear retire amid subsidies, mandates, and cheap natural gas; intermittent wind and solar raise blackout concerns, resilience costs, and pricing distortions across regulated markets.

Key Points

Reliability and cost risks as coal and nuclear retire; subsidies distort prices; intermittent renewables strain grid.

✅ Coal and nuclear retirements reduce baseload capacity

✅ Subsidies and mandates distort market pricing signals

✅ Intermittent renewables increase blackout and grid risk

Is anyone paying any attention to the crisis that is going on in our electric power markets?

Over the past six months at least four major nuclear power plants have been slated for shutdown, including the last one in operation in California. Meanwhile, dozens of coal plants have been shuttered as well — despite low prices and cleaner coal. Some of our major coal companies may go into bankruptcy.

This is a dangerous game we are playing here with our most valuable resource — outside of clean air and water. Traditionally, we've received almost half our electric power nationwide from coal and nuclear power, and for good reason. They are cheap sources of power and they are highly resilient and reliable.

The disruption to coal and nuclear power wouldn't be disturbing if this were happening as a result of market forces. That's only partially the case.

#google#

The amazing shale oil and gas revolution is providing Americans with cheap gas for home heating and power generation. Hooray. The price of natural gas has fallen by nearly two-thirds over the last decade and this has put enormous price pressure on other forms of power generation.

But this is not a free-market story of Schumpeterian creative destruction. If it were, then wind and solar power would have been shutdown years ago. They can't possibly compete on a level playing field with $3 natural gas.

In most markets solar and wind power survive purely because the states mandate that as much as 30 percent of residential and commercial power come from these sources. The utilities have to buy it regardless of price, even as electricity demand is flat in many regions. What a sweet deal. The California state legislature just mandated that every new home spend $10,000 on solar panels on the roof.

Well over $100 billion of subsidies to big wind and big solar were doled out over the last decade, and even with the avalanche of taxpayer subsidies and bailout funds many of these companies like Solyndra (which received $500 million in handouts) failed, underscoring why a green revolution hasn't materialized as promised.

These industries are not anywhere close to self sufficiency. In 2017 amid utility trends to watch the wind industry admitted that without a continuation of a multi-billion tax credit, the wind turbines would stop turning.

This combines with the left's war on coal through regulations that have destroyed coal plants in many areas. (Thank goodness for the exports of coal or the industry would be in much bigger trouble.)

Bottom line: Our power market is a Soviet central planner's dream come true and it is extinguishing our coal and nuclear industries.

Why should anyone care?

First, because government subsidies, regulations and mandates make electric power more expensive. Natural gas prices have fallen by two-thirds, but electric power costs have still risen in most areas — thanks to the renewable mandates.

More importantly, the electric power market isn't accurately pricing in the value of resilience and reliability. What is the value of making sure the lights don't go off? What is the cost to the economy and human health if we have rolling brownouts and blackouts because the aging U.S. grid doesn't have enough juice during peak demand.

Politicians, utilities and federal regulators are shortsightedly killing our coal and nuclear capacities without considering the risk of future energy shortages and power disruptions. Once a nuclear plant is shutdown, you can't just fire it back up again when you need it.

Wind and solar are notoriously unreliable. Most places where wind power is used, coal plants are needed to back up the system during peak energy use and when the wind isn't blowing.

The first choice to fix energy markets is to finally end the tangled web of layers and layers of taxpayer subsidies and mandates and let the market choose. Alas, that's nearly impossible given the political clout of big wind and solar.

The second best solution is for the regulators and utilities to take into account the grid reliability and safety of our energy. Would people be willing to pay a little more for their power to ensure against brownouts? I sure would. The cost of having too little energy far exceeds the cost of having too much.

A glass of water costs pennies, but if you're in a desert dying of thirst, that water may be worth thousands of dollars.

I'll admit I'm not sure what the best solution is to the power plant closures. But if we have major towns and cities in the country without electric power for stretches of time because of green energy fixation, Americans are going to be mighty angry and our economy will take a major hit.

When our manufacturers, schools, hospitals, the internet and iPhones shut down, we're not going to think wind and solar power are so chic.

If the lights start to go out five or 10 years from now, we will look back at what is happening today and wonder how we could have been so darn stupid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Labor National Electricity Market Reform aims to rebalance NEM rules, support a fair-dinkum clean energy target, enable renewable zones, bolster storage and grid reliability, empower households, and unlock CEFC investment via the Finkel review.

Key Points

Labor's plan to overhaul NEM rules for households, clean energy targets, renewable zones, storage, and CEFC investment.

✅ Revises NEM rules to curb big generators' market power

✅ Backs a clean energy target informed by the Finkel review

✅ Expands renewable zones, storage, and CEFC finance

Australia's Labor leader Bill Shorten has called for significant changes to the rules governing the national electricity market, saying they are biased in favour of big energy generators, leaving households worse off even with measures like a WA electricity bill credit in place.

He said the national electricity market (NEM) rules are designed to help the big companies recoup the money they spent on purchasing government assets, a dynamic echoed in debates like a Calgary market overhaul dispute unfolding in Canada, rather than encourage households to generate their own power, and they need to change faster to adapt to consumer needs.

His comments hint at a possible overhaul of the NEM’s governance structure under a future Labor government, because the current rule-making process is too cumbersome and slow, with suggested rules changes taking years to be introduced.

Daniel Andrews defends claims that civil liberties a 'luxury' in fight against terrorism

Labor had promoted a similar idea in the lead-up to the 2016 election, with its call for an electricity modernization review, but now the Finkel review has been released it would be used to guide such a review.

In a speech to the Australian Financial Review’s National Energy Summit in Sydney on Monday, Shorten recommitted Labor to negotiating a “fair-dinkum” clean energy target with the Turnbull government, amid modelling that a strong clean energy target can lower electricity prices, saying “it’s time to put away the weapons of the climate change wars” and work together to find a way forward.

He said the media and business can all share the blame for Australia’s lost decade of energy policy development, with examples abroad showing how leadership steers change, such as in Alberta where Kenney's influence on power policy has been pronounced, but “we need to stop spoiling for a fight and start seeking a solution”.

“The scare campaigns and hyper-partisanship that got Australia into this mess, will not get us out of it,” he will say.

“That’s why, a bit over four months ago, before the chief scientist released his report, I wrote to the prime minister offering an olive branch.

“I said Labor was prepared to move from our preferred position of an emissions intensity scheme and negotiate a fair-dinkum clean energy target.

“That offer was greeted with some cynicism in the media. But let me be crystal clear – I made that offer in good faith, and that offer still stands.”

Shorten said Australia needs to resolve the current “gas crisis” and do more to drive investment in renewable energy that delivers more reliable electricity, a priority underscored by the IEA's warning that falling global energy investment risks shortages, and if Labor wins the next election it will organise Australia into a series of renewable energy zones – as recommended by the chief scientist, Alan Finkel – that identify wind, solar, pumped hydro and geothermal resources, and connect them to the existing network.

“These zones would be based on both existing generation and storage in the area – and the potential for future development,” he said.

Australia's politics only barrier to clean energy system, report finds

“Identifying these zones – from eastern Queensland, north-east New South Wales, west Victoria, the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia and the entire state of Tasmania – will also plant a flag for investors – signalling future sites for job-creating projects.”

Shorten also said Labor will free up the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in more generation and more storage.

“Under Labor, the return benchmark for the CEFC was set at the weighted average of the Australian government bond rate.

“Under this government, it was initially increased to the weighted average plus 4% to 5% and is now set at the average plus 3% to 4%.

“Setting the return benchmark too high defeats the driving purpose of the CEFC and it holds back the crucial investment Australia needs – right now – in new generation and storage.

“This is why a Labor government would restore the original benchmark return of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, to invest in more generation, more storage and more jobs.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News