China pushes CO2 capture; questions loom

California Rooftop Solar Cost Shift examines PG&E rate hikes, net metering changes, and utility infrastructure spending impacts on low-income households, distributed generation, and clean energy adoption, potentially raising bills and undermining grid resilience.

Key Points

A claim that rooftop solar shifts fixed grid costs to others; critics cite PG&E rates, avoided costs, and impacts.

✅ PG&E rates outpace national average, underscoring cost drivers.

✅ Net metering cuts risk burdening low- and middle-income homes.

✅ Distributed generation avoids infrastructure spend and grid strain.

California is grappling with soaring electricity prices across the state, with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) rates more than double the national average and increasing at an average of 12.5% annually over the past six years. In response, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order directing state energy agencies to identify ways to reduce power costs. However, recent policy shifts targeting rooftop solar users may exacerbate the problem rather than alleviate it.

The "Cost Shift" Theory

A central justification for these pricing changes is the "cost shift" theory. This theory posits that homeowners with rooftop solar panels reduce their electricity consumption from the grid, thereby shifting the fixed costs of maintaining and operating the electrical grid onto non-solar customers. Proponents argue that this leads to higher rates for those without solar installations.

However, this theory is based on a flawed assumption: that PG&E owns 100% of the electricity generated by its customers and is entitled to full profits even for energy it does not deliver. In reality, rooftop solar users supply only about half of their energy needs and still pay for the rest. Moreover, their investments in solar infrastructure reduce grid strain and save ratepayers billions by avoiding costly infrastructure projects and reducing energy demand growth, aligning with efforts to revamp electricity rates to clean the grid as well.

Impact on Low- and Middle-Income Households

The majority of rooftop solar users are low- and middle-income households. These individuals often invest in solar panels to lower their energy bills and reduce their carbon footprint. Policy changes that undermine the financial viability of rooftop solar disproportionately affect these communities, and efforts to overturn income-based charges add uncertainty about affordability and access.

For instance, Assembly Bill 942 proposes to retroactively alter contracts for millions of solar consumers, cutting the compensation they receive from providing energy to the grid, raising questions about major changes to your electric bill that could follow if their home is sold or transferred. This would force those with solar leases—predominantly lower-income individuals—to buy out their contracts when selling their homes, potentially incurring significant financial burdens.

The Real Drivers of Rising Energy Costs

While rooftop solar users are being blamed for rising electricity rates, calls for action have mounted as the true culprits lie elsewhere. Unchecked utility infrastructure spending has been a significant factor in escalating costs. For example, PG&E's rates have increased rapidly, yet the utility's spending on infrastructure projects has often been criticized for inefficiency and lack of accountability. Instead of targeting solar users, policymakers should scrutinize utility profit motives and infrastructure investments to identify areas where costs can be reduced without sacrificing service quality.

California's approach to addressing rising electricity costs by targeting rooftop solar users is misguided. The "cost shift" theory is based on flawed assumptions and overlooks the substantial benefits that rooftop solar provides to the grid and ratepayers. To achieve a sustainable and equitable energy future, the state must focus on controlling utility spending, promoting clean energy access for all, especially as it exports its energy policies across the West, and ensuring that policies support—not undermine—the adoption of renewable energy technologies.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Grid Transformer Waste Heat Recovery turns substations into neighborhood boilers, supplying district heating via heat networks, helping National Grid and SSE cut emissions, boost energy efficiency, and advance low carbon, net zero decarbonization.

Key Points

Grid Transformer Waste Heat Recovery captures substation heat for district heating, cutting emissions and gas use.

✅ Captures waste heat from National Grid transformers

✅ Feeds SSE district heat networks for nearby homes

✅ Cuts carbon, improves efficiency, aligns with net zero

Thousands of homes could soon be warmed by the heat from giant electricity grid transformers for the first time as part of new plans to harness “waste heat” and cut carbon emissions from home heating.

Trials are due to begin on how to capture the heat generated by transmission network transformers, owned by National Grid, to provide home heating for households connected to district heating networks operated by SSE.

Currently, hot air is vented from the giant substations to help cool the transformers that help to control the electricity running through National Grid’s high-voltage transmission lines.

However, if the trial succeeds, about 1,300 National Grid substations could soon act as neighbourhood “boilers”, piping water heated by the substations into nearby heating networks, and on into the thousands of homes that use SSE’s services.

“Electric power transformers generate huge amounts of heat as a byproduct when electricity flows through them. At the moment, this heat is just vented directly into the atmosphere and wasted,” said Nathan Sanders, the managing director of SSE Energy Solutions.

“This groundbreaking project aims to capture that waste heat and effectively turn transformers into community ‘boilers’ that serve local heat networks with a low- or even zero-carbon alternative to fossil-fuel-powered heat sources such as gas boilers, a shift akin to a gas-for-electricity swap in heating markets,” Sanders added.

Alexander Yanushkevich, National Grid’s innovation manager, said the scheme was “essential to achieve net zero” and a “great example of how, taking a whole-system approach, including power-to-gas in Europe precedents, the UK can lead the way in helping accelerate decarbonisation”.

The energy companies believe the scheme could initially reduce heat network carbon emissions by more than 40% compared with fossil gas systems. Once the UK’s electricity system is zero carbon, and with recent milestones where wind was the main source of UK electricity on the grid, the heating solution could play a big role in helping the UK meet its climate targets.

The first trials have begun at National Grid’s specially designed testing site at Deeside in Wales to establish how the waste heat could be used in district heating networks. Once complete, the intellectual property will be shared with smaller regional electricity network owners, which may choose to roll out schemes in their areas.

Tim O’Reilly, the head of strategy at National Grid, said: “We have 1,300 transmission transformers, but there’s no reason why you couldn’t apply this technology to smaller electricity network transformers, too, echoing moves to use more electricity for heat in colder regions.”

Once the trials are complete, National Grid and SSE will have a better idea of how many homes could be warmed using the heat generated by electricity network substations, O’Reilly said, and how the heat can be used in ways that complement virtual power plants for grid resilience.

“The heavier the [electricity] load, which typically reaches a peak at around teatime, the more heat energy the transformer will be able to produce, aligning with times when wind leads the power mix nationally. So it fits quite nicely to when people require heat in the evenings,” he added.

Other projects designed to capture waste heat to use in district heating schemes include trapping the heat generated on the Northern line of London’s tube network to warm homes in Islington, and harnessing the geothermal heat from disused mines for district heating networks in Durham.

Only between 2% and 3% of the UK is connected to a district heating network, but more networks are expected to emerge in the years ahead as the UK tries to reduce the carbon emissions from homes, alongside its nuclear power plans in the wider energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

European Oil Majors Energy Transition highlights BP, Shell, and Total rapidly scaling renewables, wind and solar assets, hydrogen, electricity, and EV charging while cutting upstream capex, aligning with net-zero goals and utility-style energy services.

Key Points

It is the shift by BP, Shell, Total and peers toward renewables, electricity, hydrogen, and EV charging to meet net-zero goals.

✅ Offshore wind, solar, and hydrogen projects scale across Europe

✅ Capex shifts, fossil output declines, net-zero targets by 2050

✅ EV charging, utilities, and power trading become core services

Under pressure from governments and investors, including rising investor pressure at utilities that reverberates across the sector, industry leaders like BP and Shell are accelerating their production of cleaner energy.

This may turn out to be the year that oil giants, especially in Europe, started looking more like electric companies.

Late last month, Royal Dutch Shell won a deal to build a vast wind farm off the coast of the Netherlands. Earlier in the year, France’s Total, which owns a battery maker, agreed to make several large investments in solar power in Spain and a wind farm off Scotland. Total also bought an electric and natural gas utility in Spain and is joining Shell and BP in expanding its electric vehicle charging business.

At the same time, the companies are ditching plans to drill more wells as they chop back capital budgets. Shell recently said it would delay new fields in the Gulf of Mexico and in the North Sea, while BP has promised not to hunt for oil in any new countries.

Prodded by governments and investors to address climate change concerns about their products, Europe’s oil companies are accelerating their production of cleaner energy — usually electricity, sometimes hydrogen — and promoting natural gas, which they argue can be a cleaner transition fuel from coal and oil to renewables, as carbon emissions drop in power generation.

For some executives, the sudden plunge in demand for oil caused by the pandemic — and the accompanying collapse in earnings — is another warning that unless they change the composition of their businesses, they risk being dinosaurs headed for extinction.

This evolving vision is more striking because it is shared by many longtime veterans of the oil business.

“During the last six years, we had extreme volatility in the oil commodities,” said Claudio Descalzi, 65, the chief executive of Eni, who has been with that Italian company for nearly 40 years. He said he wanted to build a business increasingly based on green energy rather than oil.

“We want to stay away from the volatility and the uncertainty,” he added.

Bernard Looney, a 29-year BP veteran who became chief executive in February, recently told journalists, “What the world wants from energy is changing, and so we need to change, quite frankly, what we offer the world.”

The bet is that electricity will be the prime means of delivering cleaner energy in the future and, therefore, will grow rapidly as clean-energy investment incentives scale globally.

American giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron have been slower than their European counterparts to commit to climate-related goals that are as far reaching, analysts say, partly because they face less government and investor pressure (although Wall Street investors are increasingly vocal of late).

“We are seeing a much bigger differentiation in corporate strategy” separating American and European oil companies “than at any point in my career,” said Jason Gammel, a veteran oil analyst at Jefferies, an investment bank.

Companies like Shell and BP are trying to position themselves for an era when they will rely much less on extracting natural resources from the earth than on providing energy as a service tailored to the needs of customers — more akin to electric utilities than to oil drillers.

They hope to take advantage of the thousands of engineers on their payrolls to manage the construction of new types of energy plants; their vast networks of retail stations to provide services like charging electric vehicles; and their trading desks, which typically buy and hedge a wide variety of energy futures, to arrange low-carbon energy supplies for cities or large companies.

All of Europe’s large oil companies have now set targets to reduce the carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. Most have set a ”net zero” ambition by 2050, a goal also embraced by governments like the European Union and Britain.

The companies plan to get there by selling more and more renewable energy and by investing in carbon-free electricity across their portfolios, and, in some cases, by offsetting emissions with so-called nature-based solutions like planting forests to soak up carbon.

Electricity is the key to most of these strategies. Hydrogen, a clean-burning gas that can store energy and generate electric power for vehicles, also plays an increasingly large role.

The coming changes are clearest at BP. Mr. Looney said this month that he planned to increase investment in low-emission businesses like renewable energy by tenfold in the next decade to $5 billion a year, while cutting back oil and gas production by 40 percent. By 2030, BP aims to generate renewable electricity comparable to a few dozen large offshore wind farms.

Mr. Looney, though, has said oil and gas production need to be retained to generate cash to finance the company’s future.

Environmentalists and analysts described Mr. Looney’s statement that BP’s oil and gas production would decline in the future as a breakthrough that would put pressure on other companies to follow.

BP’s move “clearly differentiates them from peers,” said Andrew Grant, an analyst at Carbon Tracker, a London nonprofit. He noted that most other oil companies had so far been unwilling to confront “the prospect of producing less fossil fuels.”

While there is skepticism in both the environmental and the investment communities about whether century-old companies like BP and Shell can learn new tricks, they do bring scale and know-how to the task.

“To make a switch from a global economy that depends on fossil fuels for 80 percent of its energy to something else is a very, very big job,” said Daniel Yergin, the energy historian who has a forthcoming book, “The New Map,” on the global energy transition now occurring in energy. But he noted, “These companies are really good at big, complex engineering management that will be required for a transition of that scale.”

Financial analysts say the dreadnoughts are already changing course.

“They are doing it because management believes it is the right thing to do and also because shareholders are severely pressuring them,” said Michele Della Vigna, head of natural resources research at Goldman Sachs.

Already, he said, investments by the large oil companies in low-carbon energy have risen to as much as 15 percent of capital spending, on average, for 2020 and 2021 and around 50 percent if natural gas is included.

Oswald Clint, an analyst at Bernstein, forecast that the large oil companies would expand their renewable-energy businesses like wind, solar and hydrogen by around 25 percent or more each year over the next decade.

Shares in oil companies, once stock market stalwarts, have been marked down by investors in part because of the risk that climate change concerns will erode demand for their products. European electric companies are perceived as having done more than the oil industry to embrace the new energy era.

“It is very tricky for an investor to have confidence that they can pull this off,” Mr. Clint said, referring to the oil industry’s aspirations to change.

But, he said, he expects funds to flow back into oil stocks as the new businesses gather momentum.

At times, supplying electricity has been less profitable than drilling for oil and gas. Executives, though, figure that wind farms and solar parks are likely to produce more predictable revenue, partly because customers want to buy products labeled green.

Mr. Descalzi of Eni said converted refineries in Venice and Sicily that the company uses to make lower-carbon fuel from plant matter have produced better financial results in this difficult year than its traditional businesses.

Oil companies insist that they must continue with some oil and gas investments, not least because those earnings can finance future energy sources. “Not to make any mistake,” Patrick Pouyanné, chief executive of Total, said to analysts recently: Low-cost oil projects will be a part of the future.

During the pandemic, BP, Total and Shell have all scrutinized their portfolios, partly to determine if climate change pressures and lingering effects from the pandemic mean that petroleum reserves on their books — developed for perhaps billions of dollars, when oil was at the center of their business — might never be produced or earn less than previously expected. These exercises have led to tens of billions of dollars of write-offs for the second quarter, and there are likely to be more as companies recalibrate their plans.

“We haven’t seen the last of these,” said Luke Parker, vice president for corporate analysis at Wood Mackenzie, a market research firm. “There will be more to come as the realities of the energy transition bite.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

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

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

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

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

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

Common mistakes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bruce C Project advances Ontario clean energy with NRCan funding for nuclear reactors, impact assessment, licensing, and Indigenous engagement, delivering reliable baseload power and low-carbon electricity through pre-development studies at Bruce Power.

Key Points

A proposed nuclear build at Bruce Power, backed by NRCan funding for studies, licensing, and impact assessment to expand clean power.

✅ Up to $50M NRCan support for pre-development

✅ Focus: feasibility, impact assessment, licensing

✅ Early Indigenous and community engagement

Canada's clean energy landscape received a significant boost recently with the announcement of federal funding for the Bruce Power's Bruce C Project. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) pledged up to $50 million to support pre-development work for this potential new nuclear build on the Bruce Power site. This collaboration between federal and provincial governments signifies a shared commitment to a cleaner energy future for Ontario and Canada.

The Bruce C Project, if it comes to fruition, has the potential to be a significant addition to Ontario's clean energy grid. The project envisions constructing new nuclear reactors at the existing Bruce Power facility, located on the shores of Lake Huron. Nuclear energy is a reliable source of clean electricity generation, as evidenced by Bruce Power's operating record during the pandemic, producing minimal greenhouse gas emissions during operation.

The funding announced by NRCan will be used to conduct crucial pre-development studies. These studies will assess the feasibility of the project from various angles, including technical considerations, environmental impact assessments, and Indigenous and community engagement, informed by lessons from a major refurbishment that required a Bruce reactor to be taken offline, to ensure thorough planning. Obtaining a license to prepare the site and completing an impact assessment are also key objectives for this pre-development phase.

This financial support from the federal government aligns with both national and provincial clean energy goals. The "Powering Canada Forward" plan, spearheaded by NRCan, emphasizes building a clean, reliable, and affordable electricity system across the country. Ontario's "Powering Ontario's Growth" plan echoes these objectives, focusing on investment options, such as the province's first SMR project, to electrify the province's economy and meet its growing clean energy demand.

"Ontario has one of the cleanest electricity grids in the world and the nuclear industry is leading the way," stated Mike Rencheck, President and CEO of Bruce Power. He views this project as a prime example of collaboration between federal and provincial entities, along with the private sector, where recent manufacturing contracts underscore industry capacity.

Nuclear energy, however, remains a topic of debate. While proponents highlight its role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing reliable baseload power, opponents raise concerns about nuclear waste disposal and potential safety risks. The pre-development studies funded by NRCan will need to thoroughly address these concerns as part of the project's evaluation.

Transparency and open communication with local communities and Indigenous groups will also be crucial for the project's success. Early engagement activities facilitated by the funding will allow for open dialogue and address any potential concerns these stakeholders might have.

The Bruce C Project is still in its early stages. The pre-development work funded by NRCan will provide valuable data to determine the project's viability. If the project moves forward, it has the potential to significantly contribute to Ontario's clean energy future, while also creating jobs and economic benefits for local communities and suppliers.

However, the project faces challenges. Public perception of nuclear energy and the lengthy regulatory process are hurdles that will need to be addressed, as debates around the Pickering B refurbishment have highlighted in Ontario. Additionally, ensuring cost-effectiveness and demonstrating the project's long-term economic viability will be critical for securing broader support.

The next few years will be crucial for the Bruce C Project. The pre-development work funded by NRCan will be instrumental in determining its feasibility. If successful, this project could be a game-changer for Ontario's clean energy future, building on the province's Pickering life extensions to strengthen system adequacy, offering a reliable, low-carbon source of electricity for the province and beyond.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

COVID-19 Solar Job Losses are erasing five years of workforce growth, SEIA reports, with U.S. installations and capacity down, layoffs accelerating, 3 GW expected in Q2, and policy support key for economic recovery.

Key Points

COVID-19 Solar Job Losses describe the pandemic-driven decline in U.S. solar employment, installations, and capacity.

✅ SEIA reports a 38% national drop in solar jobs

✅ Q2 installs projected at 3 GW, below forecasts

✅ Layoffs outpace U.S. economy without swift policy aid

Job losses associated with the COVID-19 crisis have wiped out the past five years of workforce growth in the solar energy field, according to a new industry analysis.

The expected June 2020 solar workforce of 188,000 people across the United States is 114,000 below the pre-pandemic forecast of 302,000 workers, a shortfall tied to the solar construction slowdown according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, which said in a statement Monday that the solar industry is now losing jobs at a faster rate than the U.S. economy.

In Massachusetts, the loss of 4,284 solar jobs represents a 52 percent decline from previous projections, according to the association’s analysis.

The national 38 percent drop in solar jobs coincides with a 37 percent decrease in expected solar installations in the second quarter of 2020, and similar pressures have put wind investments at risk across the sector, the association stated. The U.S. is now on track to install 3 gigawatts of new capacity this quarter, though subsequent forecasts anticipated solar and storage growth as investments returned, and the association said the decrease from the expected capacity is equivalent to the electricity needed to power 288,000 homes.

“Thousands of solar workers are being laid off each week, but with swift action from Congress, we know that solar can be a crucial part of our economic recovery,” with proposals such as the Biden solar plan offering a potential policy path, SEIA President and CEO Abigail Ross Hopper said in a statement, as recent analyses point to US solar and wind growth under supportive policies.

Subsequent data showed record U.S. panel shipments as the market rebounded.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News