Next month's climate summit in Copenhagen seeks to transform the way we run the planet, from the generation of energy, to the building of homes and cities, to the shaping of the landscape. It would also shift wealth from rich to poor countries in the process.
No wonder a deal will be tough to cut.
In recent weeks, prospects brightened, then dimmed, then revived again.
U.S. President Barack Obama dampened expectations when he said during his Asian tour a final package could not be completed at the conference. He then lifted hopes by signaling the U.S. might go further in the talks in the Danish capital than had been expected because of lagging U.S. legislation.
Hoping to nudge negotiations off dead center, key governments have strengthened pledges to control their nations' greenhouse gases, the heat-trapping emissions blamed for global warming.
But everyone is still waiting to see what the U.S. will do.
The major economies "are coming to Copenhagen ready to fill in the blanks. They are all looking to see what happens in Congress, and what the U.S. is able to bring to the table," said climate analyst Jennifer Morgan of the World Resources Institute, a Washington think tank.
Facing mounting impatience, the U.S. delegation could bring a provisional number to the conference, promising at least a 17 percent cut in greenhouse gases over the next decade, measured against 2005 — a number drawn from bills awaiting congressional approval.
"It's a bit of a balancing act," said U.S. analyst Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists. The Obama administration wants to satisfy the international demand for clarity without seeming to pre-empt U.S. lawmakers, "providing ammunition for opponents in the Senate."
More than 65 heads of government will attend the final days of the December 7-18 conference, investing their personal prestige in the outcome. They include the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Japan and Spain.
Success is a matter of definition. Two years ago, when negotiations began, delegates anticipated a full treaty would be signed in Copenhagen to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which set emissions limits on 37 industrial countries. The U.S. rejected Kyoto because it imposed no obligations for China, India and other rapidly emerging economies.
Now the Danish hosts and the United Nations say it will be enough to nail down all the political elements, leaving the details, technical issues and legal language to be filled in over the following six months to a year.
Many developing countries say that's not good enough, and insist Copenhagen aim for a full-fledged legal document.
The divide over Copenhagen's goals reflects an abiding distrust between manufacturing powerhouses that built vast riches over 200 years, while spewing carbon dioxide and other industrial gases into the atmosphere, and countries still struggling to end hunger within their borders.
A new militant African bloc could complicate the Copenhagen negotiations. The 50 or so nations briefly walked out of committee meetings at the last round of talks in Spain earlier this month, alleging Western countries were not negotiating in good faith.
Whatever agreements emerge on Copenhagen's numerous issues, they must be accepted by all 192 countries.
As in the Kyoto accord, whose emission reductions expire in 2012, these talks aim to negotiate 2020 reduction targets for industrial countries. Unlike Kyoto, developing countries will be asked to contribute by presenting detailed plans for shifting to low-carbon growth, although it is unclear how that would be written into the accord and whether they would be held to account for their promises.
The second crunch issue is money: how much wealthy countries will give poor countries to cope with climate change, whether major emerging economies should chip in to a global fund, and how it will be distributed and managed, giving developing countries an equal voice. Experts say $150 billion a year may be needed eventually.
Scientists say carbon emissions must level off by 2015 and then start to rapidly decline. Within 40 years, manmade emissions should be half what they were in 1990 — and 80-95 percent lower in the economically advanced countries — to avoid the worst scenarios of climate disasters.
"We are seeking nothing less than the transformation of our energy system," Jonathan Pershing, the chief U.S. delegate, told negotiators at the final pre-Copenhagen round of talks.
Activists say that transformation must be comparable in scale to the Internet revolution: more wind, solar and nuclear energy, electric or biofuel cars and public transportation, smart electricity grids that reduce waste, concentrated high-rise cities that eliminate long commutes, an end to deforestation and more efficient carbon-storing agriculture.
The UN says the targets announced by industrial countries for 2020 add up to reductions of 16 to 23 percent below 1990 levels, far less than the 25 to 40 percent scientists say is needed.
In recent weeks some governments had upped their bids, while some developing countries promised energy reforms. The new Japanese government pledged to cut emissions by 25 percent from 1990 levels. Norway committed to a 40 percent decrease, and South Korea, not obliged to accept a carbon cap, volunteered a target of 4 percent below 1990.
Among developing countries, Indonesia pledged to stem its carbon-producing deforestation and reduce emissions by 26 percent. Brazil said it would roll back Amazon deforestation by 80 percent by 2020. China, the world's largest emitter, says renewables such as solar and wind power will be 15 percent of its energy package by 2020, and it will reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent per unit of production.
Site C Dam Injunction signals Ottawa's neutrality while B.C. reviews a hydroelectric dam project on the Peace River, amid First Nations treaty rights claims, federal approval defenses, and scrutiny of environmental assessment and Crown consultation.
Key Points
A legal request to pause Site C while courts weigh First Nations treaty rights, environmental review, and approvals.
✅ Ottawa neutral on injunction; still defends federal approvals
✅ First Nations cite treaty rights over Peace River territory
✅ B.C. jurisdiction, environmental assessment and Crown consultation at issue
The federal government is not going to argue against halting construction of the controversial Site C hydroelectric dam in British Columbia while a B.C. court decides if the project violates constitutionally protected treaty rights.
Work on Site C suspended prior to First Nations lawsuit
However a spokeswoman for Environment Minister Catherine McKenna said Monday the government will continue to defend the federal approval given for the project in December 2014, even though that approval was given using an environmental review process McKenna herself has said is fundamentally flawed.
The Site C project is an 1,100-megawatt dam and generating station on the Peace River in northern B.C. that will flood parts of the traditional territory of the West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations.
#google#
In January, they filed a civil court case against the provincial government, B.C. Hydro and the federal government asking a judge to decide if their rights were being violated by the dam. A few weeks later, West Moberly asked the court for an injunction to halt construction pending the outcome of the rights case, similar to other contested transmission projects like the Maine electricity corridor debate in New England.
On May 11, lawyers for Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould filed a notice that Canada would remain neutral on the question of the injunction, meaning Canada won't argue against the idea of postponing construction for months, if not years, while the rights case winds through the court.
Wilson-Raybould has been silent on Site C since being named Canada's minister of justice in 2015, but in 2012, when she was the B.C. regional chief for the Assembly of First Nations, she said the project was "running roughshod" over treaty rights. The Justice Department on Monday directed questions to Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Defence of environmental assessment
McKenna's spokeswoman, Caroline Theriault, said the injunction request is just a procedural step regarding construction and that it is B.C. jurisdiction not federal.
However, she said Canada will defend the environmental assessment and Crown consultation processes and the federally issued permits required for construction.
B.C. auditor general set to scrutinize Site C dam project
McKenna has legislation before the House of Commons to overhaul the process for environmental assessment of major projects like hydro dams and pipelines, arguing the former government's procedures had skewed too far towards proponents. The overhaul includes requiring traditional Indigenous knowledge be taken into account, a consideration also central to the Columbia River Treaty talks underway on both sides of the border.
However, Theriault said the commitment to overhaul the process also included a promise not to revisit projects that had already been approved, such as Site C.
"The federal environmental assessment process for the Site C project has already been upheld in other court actions," said Theriault.
'It feels kind of odd'
West Moberly Chief Roland Wilson said he was both excited and yet concerned by Canada's decision last week not to oppose the injunction.
"It feels kind of odd and makes me wonder what they're up to," Wilson said.
However he said all he has ever wanted was for the project to be stopped until the question of rights can be answered. Wilson said two previous dams on the Peace River already flooded 80 per cent of the functional land within West Moberly's territory and that Site C will flood half of what's left. That land is used for fishing and hunting and there is also concern the dam will allow mercury to leak into Moberly Lake, he said.
Retiree undaunted by steep odds against his petition to stop Site C dam
Construction began in 2015 and more than $2.4 billion has already been spent on a project that will at the earliest, not be completed until 2024 and will cost an estimated $10 billion total, with cost overrun risks underscored by the Muskrat Falls ratepayer agreement in Atlantic Canada.
The province continues to argue against the injunction and will also fight the rights case, even as Alberta suspends power purchase talks with B.C. over energy disputes. Premier John Horgan campaigned on a promise to review the Site C approval. A B.C. Utilities Commission report in November found there are alternatives to building it and that it will go over budget. Nevertheless Horgan in December said he had to let construction continue because cancelling the project would be too costly both for the province and its electricity consumers, despite the B.C. rate freeze announced around the same period.
Texas Electric Cooperatives outperformed during Winter Storm Uri, with higher customer satisfaction, equitable rolling blackouts, and stronger grid reliability compared to deregulated markets, according to ERCOT-area survey data of regulated utilities and commercial providers.
Key Points
Member-owned utilities in Texas delivering power, noted for reliability and fair outages during Winter Storm Uri.
✅ Member-owned, regulated utilities serving local communities
✅ Rated higher for blackout management and communication
✅ Operate outside deregulated markets; align incentives with users
Winter Storm Uri began to hit parts of Texas on February 13, 2021 and its onslaught left close to 4.5 million Texas homes and businesses without power, and many faced power and water disruptions at its peak. By some accounts, the preliminary number of deaths attributed to the storm is nearly 200, and the economic toll for the Lone Star State is estimated to be as high as $295 billion.
The more than two-thirds of Texans who lost power during this devastating storm were notably more negative than positive in their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, mirrored by a rise in electricity complaints statewide, with one exception. That exception are the members of the more than 60 electric cooperatives operating within the Texas Interconnection electrical grid, which, in sharp contrast to the customers of the commercial utilities that provide power to the majority of Texans, gave their local utility a positive evaluation related to its performance during the storm.
In order to study Winter Storm Uri’s impact on Texas, the Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston conducted an online survey during the first half of March of residents 18 and older who live in the 213 counties (91.5% of the state population) served by the Texas power grid, which is managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT).
Three-quarters of the survey population (75%) live in areas with a deregulated utility market, where a specified transmission and delivery utility by region is responsible for delivering the electricity (purchased from one of a myriad of private companies by the consumer) to homes and businesses. The four main utility providers are Oncor, CenterPoint CNP -2.2%, American Electric Power (AEP) North, and American Electric Power (AEP) Central.
The other 25% of the survey population live in areas with regulated markets, where a single company is responsible for both delivering the electricity to homes and businesses and serves as the only source from which electricity is purchased. Municipal-owned and operated utilities (e.g., Austin Energy, Bryan Texas Utilities, Burnet Electric Department, Denton Municipal Electric, New Braunfels Utilities, San Antonio’s CPS Energy CMS -2.1%) serve 73% of the regulated market. Electric cooperatives (e.g., Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative, Central Texas Electric Cooperative, Guadalupe Valley Cooperative, Lamb County Electric Cooperative, Pedernales Electricity Cooperative, Wood County Electric Cooperative) serve one-fifth of this market (21%), with private companies accounting for 6% of the regulated market.
The overall distribution of the survey population by electric utility providers is: Oncor (38%), CenterPoint (21%), municipal-owned utilities (18%), AEP Central & AEP North combined (12%), electric cooperatives (6%), other providers in the deregulated market (4%) and other providers in the regulated market (1%).
There were no noteworthy differences among the 31% of Texans who did not lose power during the winter storm in regard to their evaluations of their local electricity provider or their belief that the power cuts in their locale were carried out in an equitable manner.
However, among the 69% of Texans who lost power, those served by electric cooperatives in the regulated market and those served by private electric utilities in the deregulated market differed notably regarding their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, both in regard to their management of the rolling blackouts, amid debates over market reforms to avoid blackouts, and to their overall performance during the winter storm. Those Texans who lost power and are served by electric cooperatives in a regulated market had a significantly more positive evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility than did those Texans who lost power and are served by a private company in a deregulated electricity market.
For example, only 24% of Texans served by electric cooperatives had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s overall performance during the winter storm, compared to 55%, 56% and 61% of those served by AEP, Oncor and CenterPoint respectively. A slightly smaller proportion of Texans served by electric cooperatives (22%) had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s performance managing the rolling blackouts during the winter storm, compared to 58%, 61% and 71% of Texans served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint, respectively.
Texans served by electric cooperatives in regulated markets were more likely to agree that the power cuts in their local area were carried out in an equitable manner compared to Texans served by commercial electricity utilities in deregulated markets. More than half (52%) of those served by an electric cooperative agreed that power cuts during the winter storm in their area were carried out in an equitable manner, compared to only 26%, 23% and 23% of those served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint respectively
The survey data did not allow us to provide a conclusive explanation as to why the performance during the winter storm by electric cooperatives (and to a much lesser extent municipal utilities) in the regulated markets was viewed more favorably by their customers than was the performance of the private companies in the deregulated markets viewed by their customers. Yet here are three, far from exhaustive, possible explanations.
First, electric cooperatives might have performed better (based on objective empirical metrics) during the winter storm, perhaps because they are more committed to their customers, who are effectively their bosses. .
Second, members of electric cooperatives may believe their electric utility prioritizes their interests more than do customers of commercial electric utilities and therefore, even if equal empirical performance were the case, are more likely to rate their electric utility in a positive manner than are customers of commercial utilities.
Third, regulated electric utilities where a single entity is responsible for the commercialization, transmission and distribution of electricity might be better able to respond to the type of challenges presented by the February 2021 winter storm than are deregulated electric utilities where one entity is responsible for commercialization and another is responsible for transmission and distribution, aligning with calls to improve electricity reliability across Texas.
Other explanations for these findings may exist, which in addition to the three posited above, await future empirical verification via new and more comprehensive studies designed specifically to study electric cooperatives, large commercial utilities, and the incentives that these entities face under the regulatory system governing production, commercialization and distribution of electricity, including rulings that some plants are exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under state law.
Still, opinion about electricity providers during Winter Storm Uri is clear: Texans served by regulated electricity markets, especially by electric cooperatives, were much more satisfied with their providers’ performance than were those in deregulated markets. Throughout its history, Texas has staunchly supported the free market. Could Winter Storm Uri change this propensity, or will attempts to regulate electricity lessen as the memories of the storm’s havoc fades? With a hotter summer predicted to be on the horizon in 2021 and growing awareness of severe heat blackout risks, we may soon get an answer.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Ofgem Renewables Obligations drive supplier payments for renewables fees, feed-in tariffs, and renewable generation, with non-payment risking supply licences amid the price cap and volatile wholesale prices across the UK energy market.
Key Points
Mandatory payments by suppliers funding renewables via feed-in tariffs; non-payment can trigger supply licence revoking.
✅ Covers Renewables Obligation and Feed-in Tariff scheme compliance.
✅ Non-payment can lead to Ofgem action and licence loss.
✅ Affected by price cap and wholesale price volatility.
Seven small British energy suppliers owe a total of 34 million pounds ($43.74 million) in renewables fees, amid a renewables backlog that has stalled projects, and could face losing their supply licences if they cannot pay, energy regulator Ofgem reports.
Under Britain’s energy market rules, suppliers of energy must meet so-called renewables obligations and feed-in tariffs, including households' ability to sell solar power back to energy firms, which are imposed on them by the government to help fund renewable power generation.
Several small energy companies have gone bust over the past two years, a trend echoed by findings from a global utility study on renewable priorities, as they struggled to pay the renewables fees and as their profits were affected by a price cap on the most commonly used tariffs and fluctuating wholesale prices, even as a 10 GW contract brings new renewable capacity onto the UK grid.
Ofgem has called on the companies to make necessary payments by Oct. 31, as moves to offer community-generated power to all UK customers progress.
“If they do not pay Ofgem could start the process of revoking their licences to supply energy,” it said in a statement, as offshore wind power continues to scale nationwide.
The seven suppliers are, amid debates over clean energy impacts, Co-Operative Energy Limited; Flow Energy Limited; MA Energy Limited; Nabuh Energy Limited; Robin Hood Energy Limited; Symbio Energy Limited and Tonik Energy Limited. ($1 = 0.7773 pounds)
Alberta Electricity Rebate Extension provides $50 monthly credits, utility bill relief, and an natural gas rebate, supporting homes, farms, and small businesses with energy costs through December 2022, capped at 250 MWh per year.
Key Points
A provincial program extending $50 credits and energy relief, with a natural gas rebate for eligible consumers in 2022.
✅ Up to $300 in bill credits; auto-applied to eligible accounts
✅ Applies to whole bill; limit 250 MWh/year consumption
✅ Natural gas rebate triggers above $6.50/GJ Oct-Mar 2023
Alberta's electricity rebate program has been extended by three months amid an electricity price spike in Alberta, and will now be in effect until the end of December, the government said.
The program was originally to provide more than 1.9 million homes, farms and small businesses with $50 monthly credits on their electricity bills, complementing a consumer price cap on power bills, for July, August and September. It will now also cover the final three months of 2022.
Those eligible for the rebate could receive up to $300 in credits until the end of December, a relief for Alberta ratepayers facing deferral costs.
The program, designed to provide relief to Albertans hit hard by high utility bills and soaring energy prices, will cost the Alberta government $600 million.
Albertans who have consumed electricity within the past calendar year, up to a maximum of 250 megawatt hours per year, are eligible for the rebates, which will be automatically applied to consumer bills, as seen in Ontario electricity bill support initiatives.
The rebates will apply to the entire bill, similar to a lump-sum credit in Newfoundland and Labrador, not just the energy portion, the government said. The rebates will be automatic and no application will be needed.
Starting October, the government will enact a natural gas rebate program until March 2023 that will kick in when prices exceed $6.50 per gigajoule, and Alberta's consumer price cap on electricity will remain in place.
NB Power Smart Meter Opt-Out Fees reflect cost causation principles set before the Energy and Utilities Board, covering meter reading charges, transmitter-disable options, rollout targets, and education plans across New Brunswick's smart metering program.
Key Points
Fees NB Power may apply to customers opting out of smart meters, reflecting cost causation and meter-reading costs.
✅ Based on cost causation and meter reading expenses
✅ BC and Quebec charge monthly opt-out surcharges
✅ Policy finalized during rollout after EUB review
NB Power customers who do not want a smart meter installed on their home could be facing a stiff fee for that decision, but so far the utility is not saying how much it might be.
"It will be based on the principles of cost causation, but we have not gotten into the detail of what that fee would be at this point," said NB Power Senior Vice President of Operations Lori Clark at Energy and Utilities Board hearings on Friday.
In other jurisdictions that have already adopted smart meters, customers not wanting to participate have faced hundreds of dollars in extra charges, while Texas utilities' pullback from smart-home networks shows approaches can differ.
In British Columbia, power customers are charged a meter reading fee of $32.40 per month if they refuse a smart meter, or $20 per month if they accept a smart meter but insist its radio transmitter be turned off. That's a cost of between $240 and $388.80 per year for customers to opt out.
In Quebec, smart meters were installed beginning in 2012. Customers who refused the devices were initially charged $98 to opt out plus a meter reading fee of $17 per month. That was eventually cut by Quebec's energy board in 2014 to a $15 refusal fee and a $5 per month meter reading surcharge.
NB Power said it may be a year or more before it settles on its own fee.
"The opt out policy will be developed and implemented as part of the roll out. It will be one of the last things we do," said Clark.
Customers need to be on board
NB Power is in front of the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board seeking permission to spend $122.7 million to install 350,000 smart meters province wide, as neighboring markets grapple with major rate increases that heighten affordability concerns.
The meters are capable of transmitting consumption data of customers back to NB Power in real time, which the utility said will allow for a number of innovations in pricing and service, and help address old meter inaccuracies that affected some households.
The meters require near universal adoption by customers to maximize their financial benefit — like eliminating more than $20 million a year NB Power currently spends to read meters manually. The utility has said the switch will not succeed if too many customers opt out.
"We certainly wouldn't be looking at making an investment of this size without having the customer with us," said Clark.
On Thursday, Kent County resident Daniel LeBlanc, who along with Roger Richard, is opposing the introduction of smart meters for health reasons, predicted a cool reception for the technology in many parts of the province, given concerns that include health effects and billing disputes in Nova Scotia reported elsewhere.
"If one were to ask most of the people in the rural areas, I'm not sure you would get a lot of takers for this infrastructure," said LeBlanc, who is concerned with the long-term effect microwave frequencies used by the meters to transmit data may have on human health.
That issue is before the EUB next week.
Haven't tested the waters
NB Power acknowledged it has not measured public opinion on adopting smart meters but is confident it can convince customers it is a good idea for them and the utility, even as seasonal rate proposals in New Brunswick have prompted consumer backlash.
"People don't understand what the smart meter is," said Clark. "We need to educate our customers first to allow them to make an informed decision so that will be part of the roll out plan."
Clark noted that smart meters, helped by stiff opting out penalties, were eventually accepted by 98 per cent of customers in British Columbia and by 97.4 per cent of customers in Quebec.
"We will check and adjust along the way if there are issues with customer uptake," said Clark.
"This is very similar to what has been done in other jurisdictions and they haven't had those challenges."
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
