Collider repairs at CERN to cost $25-million

Duke Energy Carolinas Solar RFP draws 3.9 GW of utility-scale bids, oversubscribed in DEP and DEC, below avoided cost rates, minimal battery storage, strict PPA terms, and interconnection challenges across North and South Carolina.

Key Points

Utility-scale solar procurement in DEC and DEP, evaluated against avoided cost, with few storage bids and PPA terms.

✅ 3.9 GW bids for 680 MW; DEP most oversubscribed

✅ Most projects 7-80 MWac; few include battery storage

✅ Bids must price below 20-year avoided cost estimate

Last week the independent administrator for Duke’s 680 MW solar solicitation revealed data about the projects which have bid in response to the offer, showing a massive amount of interest in the opportunity.

Overall, 18 individuals submitted bids for projects in Duke Energy Carolinas (DEC) territory and 10 in Duke Energy Progress (DEP), with a total of more than 3.9 GW of proposals – more nearly 6x the available volume. DEP was relatively more over-subscribed, with 1.2 GWac of projects vying for only 80 MW of available capacity.

This is despite a requirement that such projects come in below the estimate of Duke’s avoided cost for the next 20 years, and amid changes in solar compensation that could affect project economics. Individual projects varied in capacity from 7-80 MWac, with most coming within the upper portion of that range.

These bids will be evaluated in the spring of 2019, and as Duke Energy Renewables continues to expand its portfolio, Duke Energy Communications Manager Randy Wheeless says he expects the plants to come online in a year or two.

Lack of storage

Despite recent trends in affordable batteries, of the 78 bids that came in only four included integrated battery storage. Tyler Norris, Cypress Creek Renewables’ market lead for North Carolina, says that this reflects that the methodology used is not properly valuing storage.

“The lack of storage in these bids is a missed opportunity for the state, and it reflects a poorly designed avoided cost rate structure that improperly values storage resources, commercially unreasonable PPA provisions, and unfavorable interconnection treatment toward independent storage,” Norris told pv magazine.

“We’re hopeful that these issues will be addressed in the second RFP tranche and in the current regulatory proceedings on avoided cost and state interconnection standards and grid upgrades across the region.”

Limited volume for North Carolina?

Another curious feature of the bids is that nearly the same volume of solar has been proposed for South Carolina as North Carolina – despite this solicitation being in response to a North Carolina law and ongoing legal disputes such as a church solar case that challenged the state’s monopoly model.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Russia-Ukraine Energy Ceasefire Violations escalate as U.S.-brokered truce frays, with drone strikes, shelling, and grid attacks disrupting gas supply and power infrastructure across Kursk, Luhansk, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk, prompting sanctions calls.

Key Points

Alleged breaches of a U.S.-brokered truce, with both sides striking power grids, gas lines, and critical energy nodes.

✅ Drone and artillery attacks reported on power and gas assets

✅ Both sides accuse each other of breaking truce terms

✅ U.S. mediation faces verification and compliance hurdles

Russia and Ukraine have traded fresh accusations regarding violations of a fragile energy ceasefire, brokered by the United States, which both sides had agreed to last month. These new allegations highlight the ongoing tensions between the two nations and the challenges involved in implementing a truce amid global energy instability in such a complex and volatile conflict.

The U.S.-brokered ceasefire had initially aimed to reduce the intensity of the fighting, specifically in the energy sector, where both sides had previously targeted each other’s infrastructure. Despite this agreement, the accusations on Wednesday suggest that both Russia and Ukraine have continued their attacks on each other's energy facilities, a crucial aspect of the ceasefire’s terms.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence claimed that Ukrainian forces had launched drone and shelling attacks in the western Kursk region, cutting power to over 1,500 homes. This attack allegedly targeted key infrastructure, leaving several localities without electricity. Additionally, in the Russian-controlled part of Ukraine's Luhansk region, a Ukrainian drone strike hit a gas distribution station, severely disrupting the gas supply for over 11,000 customers in the area around Svatove.

In response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Russia of breaking the ceasefire. He claimed that Russian drone strikes had targeted an energy substation in Ukraine’s Sumy region, while artillery fire had damaged a power line in the Dnipropetrovsk region, leaving nearly 4,000 consumers without power even as Ukraine increasingly leans on electricity imports to stabilize the grid. Ukraine's accusations painted a picture of continued Russian aggression against critical energy infrastructure, a strategy that had previously been a hallmark of Russia’s broader military operations in the war.

The U.S. had brokered the energy truce as a potential stepping stone toward a more comprehensive ceasefire agreement. However, the repeated violations raise questions about the truce’s viability and the broader prospects for peace between Russia and Ukraine. Both sides are accusing each other of undermining the agreement, which had already been delicate due to previous suspicions and mistrust. In particular, the U.S. administration, led by President Donald Trump, has expressed impatience with the slow progress in moving toward a lasting peace, amid debates over U.S. national energy security priorities.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov defended Russia’s stance, emphasizing that President Vladimir Putin had shown a commitment to peace by agreeing to the energy truce, despite what he termed as daily Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure. He reiterated that Russia would continue to cooperate with the U.S., even though the Ukrainian strikes were ongoing. This perspective suggests that Russia remains committed to the truce but views Ukraine’s actions as violations that could potentially derail efforts to reach a more comprehensive ceasefire.

On the other hand, President Zelensky argued that Russia was not adhering to the terms of the ceasefire. He urged the U.S. to take a stronger stance against Russia, including increasing sanctions on Moscow as punishment for its violations. Zelensky’s call for heightened sanctions is a continuation of his efforts to pressure international actors, particularly the U.S. and European countries, to provide greater energy security support for Ukraine’s struggle and to hold Russia accountable for its actions.

The ceasefire’s fragility is also reflected in the differing views between Ukraine and Russia on what constitutes a successful resolution. Ukraine had proposed a full 30-day ceasefire, but President Putin declined, raising concerns about monitoring and verifying compliance with the terms. This disagreement suggests that both sides are not entirely aligned on what a peaceful resolution should look like and how it can be realistically achieved.

The situation is complicated by the broader context of the war, which has now dragged on for over three years. The conflict has seen significant casualties, immense destruction, and deep geopolitical ramifications. Both countries are heavily reliant on their energy infrastructures, making any attack on these systems not only a military tactic but also a form of economic warfare. Energy resources, including electricity and natural gas, have become central to the ongoing conflict, with both sides using them to exert pressure on the other amid Europe's deepening energy crisis that reverberates beyond the battlefield.

As of now, it remains unclear whether the recent violations of the energy ceasefire will lead to a breakdown of the truce or whether the United States will intervene further to restore compliance, even as Ukraine prepares for winter amid energy challenges. The situation remains fluid, and the international community continues to closely monitor the developments. The U.S., which played a central role in brokering the energy ceasefire, has made it clear that it expects both sides to uphold the terms of the agreement and work toward a more permanent cessation of hostilities.

The continued accusations between Russia and Ukraine regarding the breach of the energy ceasefire underscore the challenges of negotiating peace in such a complex and entrenched conflict. While both sides claim to be upholding their commitments, the reality on the ground suggests that reaching a full and lasting peace will require much more than temporary truces. The international community, particularly the U.S., will likely continue to push for stronger actions to enforce compliance and to prevent the conflict from further escalating. The outcome of this dispute will have significant implications for both countries and the broader European energy landscape and security landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

Ukraine Electricity Imports surge to record levels as EU neighbors bolster grid stability amid Russian strikes, supporting energy security, preventing blackouts, and straining cross-border transmission capacity while Ukraine rebuilds damaged infrastructure and diversifies with renewables.

Key Points

Emergency EU power purchases stabilizing Ukraine’s grid after war damage.

✅ Record 19,000 MWh per day from EU interconnectors

✅ Supports grid stability and blackout prevention

✅ Cost and transmission upgrades challenge sustainability

Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine has extended far beyond the battlefield, with critical infrastructure becoming a target. Ukraine's once-robust energy system has sustained significant damage amid energy ceasefire violations and Russian missile and drone strikes. To cope with these disruptions and maintain power supplies for Ukrainian citizens, the country is turning to record-breaking electricity imports from neighboring European nations.

Prior to the war, Ukraine enjoyed a self-sufficient energy sector, even exporting electricity to neighboring countries. However, targeted attacks on power plants and transmission lines have crippled generation capacity. The situation is particularly dire in eastern and southern Ukraine, where ongoing fighting has caused extensive damage.

Faced with this energy crisis, Ukraine is looking to Europe for a lifeline. The country's energy ministry has announced plans to import a staggering amount of electricity – exceeding 19,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) per day – to prepare for winter and stabilize supplies. This surpasses the previous record set in March 2024 and represents a significant increase in Ukraine's reliance on external power sources.

Several European nations are stepping up to support Ukraine. Countries like Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, which maintains quiet energy ties with Russia today, and Moldova have agreed to provide emergency electricity supplies. These imports will help stabilize Ukraine's power grid and prevent widespread blackouts, especially during peak consumption hours.

The reliance on imports, however, presents its own set of challenges. Firstly, the sheer volume of electricity needed puts a strain on the capacity of neighboring grids. Upgrading and expanding transmission infrastructure will be crucial to ensure a smooth flow of electricity. Secondly, the cost of imported electricity can be higher than domestically generated power amid price hikes and instability globally, placing additional pressure on Ukraine's already strained finances.

Beyond these immediate concerns, the long-term implications of relying on external energy sources need to be considered. Ukraine's long-term goal is to rebuild its own energy infrastructure and regain energy independence. International assistance, including energy security support measures, will be crucial in this endeavor. Financial aid and technical expertise can help Ukraine repair damaged power plants, diversify its energy mix through further investment in renewables, and develop more resilient grid infrastructure.

The war in Ukraine has underscored the importance of energy security. A nation's dependence on a single source of energy, be it domestic or foreign, leaves it vulnerable to disruption, as others consider national security and fossil fuels in their own policies. For Ukraine, diversification and building a more resilient energy infrastructure are key takeaways from this crisis.

The international community also has a role to play. Supporting Ukraine's energy sector not only helps the nation weather the current crisis but also strengthens European energy security as a whole, where concerns over Europe's energy nightmare remain pronounced. A stable and independent Ukraine, less reliant on Russian energy, contributes to a more secure and prosperous Europe.

As the war in Ukraine continues, the battle for energy security rages on. While the immediate focus is on keeping the lights on through imports, the long-term goal for Ukraine is to rebuild a stronger, more resilient energy sector that can power the nation's future. The international community's support will be crucial in helping Ukraine achieve this goal.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Utility Rate Rider will add a modest fee to electricity bills and natural gas charges as the AUC recovers outstanding debt from the COVID-19 deferral program via AESO and the Balancing Pool.

Key Points

A temporary surcharge on Alberta power and gas bills to recover unpaid COVID-19 deferral debt, administered by the AUC.

✅ Applies per kWh and per GJ based on consumption

✅ Recovers unpaid balances from 2020-21 bill deferrals

✅ Collected via AESO and the Balancing Pool under AUC oversight

The province says Alberta ratepayers should expect to see an extra fee on their utility bills in the coming months.

That fee is meant to recover the outstanding debt owed to gas and electricity providers resulting from last year's three-month utility deferral program offered to struggling Albertans during the pandemic.

The provincial government announced the utility deferral program in March 2020 then formalized it with legislation, alongside a consumer price cap on power bills that shaped later policy decisions.

The program allowed residential, farm and small commercial customers who used less than 250,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year — or consumed less than 2,500 gigajoules per year — to postpone their bills amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the province, 350,000 customers, or approximately 13 per cent of the natural gas and electricity consumer base, took advantage of the program.

Customers had a year to repay providers what they owed. That deadline ended June 18, 2021.

The Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC), which regulates the utilities sector and natural gas and electricity markets and oversees a rate of last resort framework, said the vast majority of consumers have squared up.

But for those who didn't, provincial legislation dictates that Alberta ratepayers must cover any unpaid debt. The legislation exempts Medicine Hat utility customers for electricity and gas co-operative customers for gas.

"When the program was announced, it was very clear that it was a deferral program and that the monies would need to be paid back," said Geoff Scotton, a spokesperson with the Alberta Utilities Commission.

"Now we're in the situation where the providers, in good faith, who enabled those payment deferrals, need to be made whole. That's really the goal here."

Amount to be determined
Margeaux Maron, a spokesperson for Associate Minister of Natural Gas and Electricity Dale Nally, said based on early estimates, $13 to $16 million of $92 million in deferred payments remain outstanding.

As a result, the province expects the average Albertan will end up paying, unlike jurisdictions offering a lump-sum credit, a fraction of a dollar extra per monthly gas and electricity bill over a handful of months.

Scotton said at this point, there are too many unknown factors to know the exact size of the rate rider. However, he said he expects it to be modest.

Scotton said affected parties first have until the end of this week to notify the AUC exactly how much they are still owed.

Those parties include the Alberta Electric System Operator and the Balancing Pool, who essentially acted as bankers with respect to the distribution and transmission of the utilities to customers who deferred their payments.

Regulated service providers may also seek reimbursement on administrative and carrying costs, even as issues like a BC Hydro fund surplus spark debate elsewhere.

Then, Scotton said, once the outstanding amounts are known, the AUC will hold a public proceeding, similar to a Nova Scotia rate case, to determine the amount and the duration of the rate rider to be applied to each natural gas and electricity bill.

The amount will be based on consumption: per kilowatt hour for electricity and per gigajoule for natural gas.

That means larger businesses will end up paying more than the average Albertan.

Scotton said the AUC will expedite the hearing process and it expects to have a decision by the end of the summer.

Rate rider a 'surprise'
Joel MacDonald with Energyrates.ca — an organization which compares energy rates across the country — said it's not the amount of the rate rider that bothers him, but the fact that the repayment process wasn't made clear at the onset of the program.

"It came to us as a bit of a surprise," MacDonald said.

He said what was sold as a deferral program seems more like an electricity rebate program, or an "ability to pay" program.

"As opposed to the retailers looking into collection methods, anything that wasn't paid is basically just being forced upon all Alberta consumers," MacDonald said.

The expectation set out in the deferral legislation and regulations state utility providers such as Enmax and Epcor are expected to use reasonable efforts to try to collect the unpaid balances. It must then detail those reasonable efforts to the AUC.

A spokesperson for Enmax said it first works with its customers to find manageable payment arrangements and connects them with support services if they are unable to pay.

Then, if payment can't be arranged, it said it will work with a collection agency, which may even result in disconnection of service.

The spokesperson said only after all efforts have failed would Enmax seek reimbursement through this program.

Use tax revenues?
MacDonald also questioned why a government program isn't being paid for through general tax revenues.

He compared the utility deferral program to a mortgage subsidy program.

"Imagine that [Canada Mortgage And Housing Corporation] said, 'Hey, we had to give mortgage deferrals and some of these people never paid back their deferrals, so we're going to add an extra $300 to everyone's mortgage,'" he said.

"You'd expect that to come off of some sort of general taxation — not being assigned to other people's mortgages, right?"

In response, Maron said due to the current fiscal challenges facing the government — and the expected minimal costs to consumers, and even as a consumer price cap on electricity remains in place — it was determined that a rate rider would be an appropriate mechanism to repay bad debt associated with the program.

Scotton said rate riders aren't unusual — they're used to fine-tune rates for a set period of time.

He said under normal circumstances, regulated service providers can apply to the AUC to impose a rate rider to recover unexpected costs. And in some instances, they can provide a credit.

But in this situation, he said the debt is aggregated and, in turn, being collected more broadly.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

TEP Undergrounding Policy prioritizes selective underground power lines to manage wildfire risk, engineering costs, and ratepayer impacts, balancing transmission and distribution reliability with right-of-way, safety, and vegetation management per Arizona regulators.

Key Points

A selective TEP approach to bury lines where safety, engineering, and cost justify undergrounding.

✅ Selective undergrounding for feeders near substations

✅ Balances wildfire mitigation, reliability, and ratepayer costs

✅ Follows ACC rules, BLM and USFS vegetation management

Though wildfires in California caused by power lines have prompted calls for more underground lines, Tucson Electric Power Co. plans to keep to its policy of burying lines selectively for safety.

Like many other utilities, TEP typically doesn’t install its long-range, high-voltage transmission lines, such as the TransWest Express project, and distribution equipment underground because of higher costs that would be passed on to ratepayers, TEP spokesman Joe Barrios said.

But the company will sometimes bury lower-voltage lines and equipment where it is cost-effective or needed for safety as utilities adapt to climate change across North America, or if customers or developers are willing to pay the higher installation costs

Underground installations generally include additional engineering expenses, right-of-way acquisition for projects like the New England Clean Power Link in other regions, and added labor and materials, Barrios said.

“This practice avoids passing along unnecessary costs to customers through their rates, so that all customers are not asked to subsidize a discretionary expenditure that primarily benefits residents or property owners in one small area of our service territory,” he said, adding that the Arizona Corporation Commission has supported the company’s policy.

Even so, TEP will place equipment underground in some circumstances if engineering or safety concerns, including electrical safety tips that utilities promote during storm season, justify the additional cost of underground installation, Barrios said.

In fact, lower-voltage “feeder” lines emerging from distribution substations are typically installed underground until the lines reach a point where they can be safely brought above ground, he added.

While in California PG&E has shut off power during windy weather to avoid wildfires in forested areas traversed by its power lines after events like the Drum Fire last June, TEP doesn’t face the same kind of wildfire risk, Barrios said.

Most of TEP’s 5,000 miles of transmission and distribution lines aren’t located in heavily forested areas that would raise fire concerns, though large urban systems have seen outages after station fires in Los Angeles, he said.

However, TEP has an active program of monitoring transmission lines and trimming vegetation to maintain a fire-safety buffer zone and address risks from vandalism such as copper theft where applicable, in compliance with federal regulations and in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News