3MÂ’s ACCR Helps Boost Capacity for Shanghai

Spain Electricity Prices surge to record highs as the wholesale market hits €339.84/MWh, driven by gas costs and CO2 permits, impacting PVPC regulated tariffs, free-market contracts, and household energy bills, OMIE data show.

Key Points

Rates in Spain's wholesale market that shape PVPC tariffs and free-market bills, moving with gas prices and CO2 costs.

✅ Record €339.84/MWh; peak 20:00-21:00; low 04:00-05:00 (OMIE).

✅ PVPC users and free-market contracts face higher bills.

✅ Drivers: high gas prices and rising CO2 emission rights.

Electricity in Spain's wholesale market will rise in price once more as European electricity prices continue to surge. Once again, it will set a historical record in Spain, reaching €339.84/MWh. With this figure, it is already the fifth time that the threshold of €300 has been exceeded.

This new high is a 6.32 per cent increase on today’s average price of €319.63/MWh, which is also a historic record, while Germany's power prices nearly doubled over the past year. Monday’s energy price will make it 682.65 per cent higher than the corresponding date in 2020, when the average was €43.42.

According to data published by the Iberian Energy Market Operator (OMIE), Monday’s maximum will be between the hours of 8pm and 9pm, reaching €375/MWh, a pattern echoed by markets where Electric Ireland price hikes reflect wholesale volatility. The cheapest will be from 4am to 5am, at €267.99.

The prices of the ‘pool’ have a direct effect on the regulated tariff  – PVPC – to which almost 11 million consumers in the country are connected, and serve as a reference for the other 17 million who have contracted their supply in the free market, where rolling back prices is proving difficult across Europe.

These spiraling prices in recent months, which have fueled EU energy inflation, are being blamed on high gas prices in the markets, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emission rights, both of which reached record highs this year.

According to an analysis by Facua-Consumidores en Acción, if the same rates were maintained for the rest of the month, the last invoice of the year would reach €134.45 for the average user. That would be 94.1 per cent above the €69.28 for December 2020, while U.S. residential electricity bills rose about 5% in 2022 after inflation adjustments.

The average user’s bill so far this year has increased by 15.1 per cent compared to 2018, as US electricity prices posted their largest jump in 41 years. Thus, compared to the €77.18 of three years ago, the average monthly bill now reaches €90.87 euros. However, the Government continues to insist that this year households will end up paying the same as in 2018.

As Ruben Sanchez, the general secretary of Facua commented, “The electricity bill for December would have to be negative for President Sanchez, and Minister Ribera, to fulfill their promise that this year consumers will pay the same as in 2018 once the CPI has been discounted”.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Electricity Market faces energy-only vs capacity debate as transmission, distribution, and administration fees surge; rural rates rise amid a regulated duopoly of investor-owned utilities, prompting calls for competition, innovation, and lower bills.

Key Points

Alberta's electricity market is an energy-only system with rising delivery charges and limited rural competition.

✅ Energy-only design; capacity market scrapped

✅ Delivery charges outpace energy on monthly bills

✅ Rural duopoly limits competition and raises rates

Last week, Alberta’s new Energy Minister Sonya Savage announced the government, through its new electricity rules, would be scrapping plans to shift Alberta’s electricity to a capacity market and would instead be “restoring certainty in the electricity system.”

The proposed transition from energy only to a capacity market is a contentious subject as a market reshuffle unfolds across the province that many Albertans probably don’t know much about. Our electricity market is not a particularly glamorous subject. It’s complicated and confusing and what matters most to ordinary Albertans is how it affects their monthly bills.

What they may not realize is that the cost of their actual electricity used is often just a small fraction of their bill amid rising electricity prices across the province. The majority on an average electricity bill is actually the cost of delivering that electricity from the generator to your house. Charges for transmission, distribution and franchise and administration fees are quickly pushing many Alberta households to the limit with soaring bills.

According to data from Alberta’s Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA), and alongside policy changes, in 2004 the average monthly transmission costs for residential regulated-rate customers was below $2. In 2018 that cost was averaging nearly $27 a month. The increase is equally dramatic in distribution rates which have more than doubled across the province and range wildly, averaging from as low as $10 a month in 2004 to over $80 a month for some residential regulated-rate customers in 2018.

Where you live determines who delivers your electricity. In Alberta’s biggest cities and a handful of others the distribution systems are municipally owned and operated. Outside those select municipalities most of Alberta’s electricity is delivered by two private companies which operate as a regulated duopoly. In fact, two investor-owned utilities deliver power to over 95 per cent of rural Alberta and they continue to increase their share by purchasing the few rural electricity co-ops that remained their only competition in the market. The cost of buying out their competition is then passed on to the customers, driving rates even higher.

As the CEO of Alberta’s largest remaining electricity co-op, I know very well that as the price of materials, equipment and skilled labour increase, the cost of operating follows. If it costs more to build and maintain an electricity distribution system there will inevitably be a cost increase passed on to the consumer. The question Albertans should be asking is how much is too much and where is all that money going with these private- investor-owned utilities, as the sector faces profound change under provincial leadership?

The reforms to Alberta’s electricity system brought in by Premier Klein in the late 1900s and early 2000s contributed to a surge in investment in the sector and led to an explosion of competition in both electricity generation and retail. 

More players entered the field which put downward pressure on electricity rates, encouraged innovation and gave consumers a competitive choice, even as a Calgary electricity retailer urged the government to scrap the overhaul. But the legislation and regulations that govern rural electricity distribution in Alberta continue to facilitate and even encourage the concentration of ownership among two players which is certainly not in the interests of rural Albertans.

It is also not in the spirit of the United Conservative Party platform commitment to a “market-based” system. A market-based system suggests more competition. Instead, what we have is something approaching a monopoly for many Albertans. The UCP promised a review of the transition to a capacity market that would determine which market would be best for Alberta, and through proposed electricity market changes has decided that we will remain an energy-only market.
Consumers in rural Alberta need electricity to produce the goods that power our biggest industries. Instead of regulating and approving continued rate increases from private multinational corporations, we need to drive competition and innovation that can push rates down and encourage growth and investment in rural-based industries and communities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

DOE Environmental Management Funding Boost seeks $7.25B to accelerate nuclear cleanup, upgrade Savannah River Site infrastructure, create jobs, and support small businesses, echoing ARRA 2009 results and expediting DOE EM waste remediation nationwide.

Key Points

A proposed $7.25B stimulus for DOE's EM to accelerate nuclear cleanup, modernize infrastructure, and create jobs.

✅ $7.25B one-time stimulus for DOE EM cleanup and infrastructure.

✅ Targets Savannah River Site; supports jobs and small businesses.

✅ Builds on ARRA 2009; accelerates nuclear waste remediation.

A bloc of local governments and nuclear industry, nuclear innovation efforts, labor and community groups are pressing Congress to provide a one-time multibillion-dollar boost to the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management, the remediation-focused Savannah River Site landlord.

The organizations and officials -- including Citizens For Nuclear Technology Awareness Executive Director Jim Marra and Savannah River Site Community Reuse Organization President and CEO Rick McLeod -- sent a letter Friday to U.S. House and Senate leadership "strongly" supporting a $7.25 billion funding injection, even as ACORE challenges coal and nuclear subsidies in separate regulatory proceedings, arguing it "will help reignite the national economy," help revive small businesses and create thousands of new jobs despite the novel coronavirus crisis.

More than 30 million Americans have filed unemployment claims in the past two months, with additional clean energy job losses reported, too. Hundreds of thousands of claims have been filed in South Carolina since mid-March, compounding issues like unpaid utility bills in neighboring states.

The requested money could, too, speed Environmental Management's nuclear waste cleanup missions and be used to fix ailing infrastructure and strengthen energy security for rural communities nationwide -- some of which dates back to the Cold War -- at sites across the country. That's a "rare" opportunity, reads the letter, which prominently features the Energy Communities Alliance logo and its chairman's signature.

Similar funding programs, like what was done with the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and recent clean energy funding initiatives, have been successful.

At the time, amid a staggering economic downturn nationwide, Environmental Management contractors "hired over 20,000 new workers," putting them "to work to reduce the overall cleanup complex footprint by 688 square miles while strengthening local economies," the Friday letter reads.

The Energy Department's cleanup office estimates the $6 billion investment years ago reduced its environmental liability by $13 billion, according to a 2012 report.

Such a leap forward, the coalition believes, is repeatable, a view reflected in current plans to revitalize coal communities with clean energy projects across the country.

"We are confident that DOE can successfully manage increased funding and leverage it for future economic development as it has in the past," the letter states. It continues: "We take pride in working together to support jobs and development of infrastructure and work that make our country stronger and assists us to recover from the impacts of COVID-19."

As of Monday afternoon, 8,942 cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, have been logged in South Carolina. Aiken County is home to 155 of those cases.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

PG&E Bankruptcy Plan outlines wildfire victims compensation via a $13.5B trust funded by cash and stock, aiming CPUC and court approval before June 30 to access the state wildfire insurance fund and finalize settlement.

Key Points

A regulator-approved plan funding a $13.5B wildfire victims trust with cash and PG&E stock to exit bankruptcy.

✅ $13.5B trust split between cash and PG&E shares

✅ Targets CPUC and court approval to meet June 30 deadline

✅ Accesses state wildfire insurance fund for future risks

Pacific Gas & Electric's plan for getting out of bankruptcy has won overwhelming support from the victims of deadly Northern California wildfires ignited by the utility's fraying electrical grid, while some have pursued mega-fire lawsuits through the courts as well, despite concerns that they will be shortchanged by a $13.5 billion fund that's supposed to cover their losses.

The company announced the preliminary results of the vote on Monday without providing a specific tally. Those numbers are supposed to be filed with U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali by Friday.

The backing of the wildfire victims keeps PG&E on track to meet a June 30 deadline to emerge from bankruptcy in time to qualify for a coverage from a California wildfire insurance fund created to help protect the utility from getting into financial trouble again.

The current bankruptcy case, which began early last year, will require PG&E to pay out about $25.5 billion to cover the devastation caused by its neglect, including a Camp Fire guilty plea that underscored liabilities in court proceedings. It's the second time in less than 20 years that PG&E has filed for bankruptcy.

The backing for PG&E's plan isn't a surprise, even though some of the roughly 80,000 wildfire victims had been trying to rally resistance to what they consider to be a deeply flawed plan. The misgivings mostly center on the massive debt that the utility will take on to finance the plan and uncertainties about the fluctuating value of the $6.75 billion in company stock that comprises half of the $13.5 billion promised them.

As it became apparent that the COVID-19 pandemic would drive the economy into a deep recession, PG&E's shares plunged along with the rest of the stock market during March, even as it announced pandemic response measures for customers and employees during that period. That led one financial expert to estimate the PG&E stock earmarked for the wildfire victims' trust would be worth only $4.85 billion, a nearly 30% markdown.

But PG&E's stock price has rebounded in recent weeks and it's now worth more than it was when the deal setting up the victims' trust was struck last December. The shares surged more than 8% to $12.28 in Monday's late afternoon trading. The stock stood at $9.65 when PG&E reached its settlement the wildfire victims.

Critics of the utility's plan also are upset because the company still hasn't specified when the fire victims will be able to sell the shares. It now seems likely the victims will have to hold the stock through the upcoming wildfire season in Northern California, raising the specter that another calamity caused by the utility's badly outdated equipment, as power line fire reports have underscored, could cause the shares to plummet before they can cash out.

A petition signed by more than 3,100 wildfire victims recently urged Gov. Gavin Newsom to consider pushing back the deadline for qualifying for the state's wildfire from June 30 to late August to allow for more time to revise PG&E's plan, as many also turn to a wildfire assistance program for interim aid while they wait. Newsom's office hasn't responded to inquiry about the plan from The Associated Press.

But the lawyers representing the wildfire victims advised their clients to vote in favor of PG&E's plan, contending that it's the best deal they are going to get.

PG&E still must get its plan approved by the judge supervising its case, and a recent judge order on dividend use underscores the focus on wildfire mitigation. The confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin May 27. The judge, though, has indicated he will give great weight to the wishes of the wildfire victims.

California state regulators also must approve PG&E's plan, amid projections that rates will stabilize in 2025 for customers. A vote on that is scheduled Thursday before the Public Utilities Commission.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

AIDAsol shore power Rostock-Warnemfcnde delivers cold ironing for cruise ships, up to 20 MVA at berths P7 and P8, cutting port emissions during berthing and advancing AIDA's green cruising strategy across European ports.

Key Points

Rostock-Warnemfcnde shore power supplies two cruise ships up to 20 MVA, enabling cold ironing and cutting emissions.

✅ Up to 20 MVA; powers two cruise ships at berths P7 and P8

✅ Enables cold ironing for AIDA fleet to reduce berth emissions

✅ Part of AIDA green cruising with fuel cells and batteries

In a ceremony held in Rostock-Warnemünde yesterday during Germany’s 12th National Maritime Conference, the 2,174-passenger cruise ship AIDAsol inaugurated Europe’s largest shore power plants for ships.

The power plant has been established under a joint agreement between AIDA Cruises, a unit of Carnival Corporation & plc (NYSE/LSE: CCL; NYSE: CUK), the state government of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, the city of Rostock and the Port of Rostock.

“With our green cruising strategy, we have been investing in a sustainable cruise market for many years,” said AIDA Cruises President Felix Eichhorn. “The shore power plant in Rostock-Warnemünde is another important step — after the facility in Hamburg — on our way to an emission-neutral cruise that we want to achieve with our fleet. I would like to thank the state government of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and all partners involved for the good and trusting cooperation. Together, we are sending out an important signal, not just in Germany, but throughout Europe.”

CAN POWER TWO CRUISE SHIPS AT A TIME
The shore power plant, which was completed in summer 2020, is currently the largest in Europe and aligns with port electrification efforts such as the all-electric berth at London Gateway in the UK. With an output of up to 20 megavolt amperes (MVA), two cruise ships can be supplied with electricity at the same time at berths P7 and P8 in Warnemünde.

In regular passenger operation AIDAsol needs up to 4.5 megawatts per hour (MWh) of electricity.

The use of shore power to supply ships with energy is a decisive step in AIDA Cruises’ plans to reduce local emissions to zero during berthing, complementing recent progress with electric ships on the B.C. coast, as a cruise ship typically stays in port around 40% of its operating time.

As early as 2004, when the order for the construction of AIDAdiva was placed, and for all other ships put into service in subsequent years, the company has considered the use of shore power as an option for environmentally friendly ship operation.

Since 2017, AIDA Cruises has been using Europe’s first shore power plant in Hamburg-Altona, where AIDAsol is in regular operation, while operators like BC Ferries add hybrid ferries to expand low-emission service in Canada. Currently, 10 ships in the AIDA fleet can either use shore power where available or are technically prepared for it.

The aim is to convert all ships built from 2000 onwards, supporting future solutions like offshore charging with wind power.

With AIDA Cruises starting a cruise season from Kiel, Germany, on May 22, AIDAsol will also be the first cruise ship to complete the final tests on a newly built shore power plant there, as innovations such as Berlin’s electric flying ferry highlight the broader shift toward electrified waterways. Construction of that plant is the result of a joint initiative by the state government of Schleswig-Holstein, the city and the port of Kiel and AIDA Cruises. AIDAsol is scheduled to arrive in Kiel on the afternoon of May 13.

As part of its green cruising strategy, AIDA Cruises has been investing in a sustainable cruise operation for many years, paralleling urban shifts toward zero-emission bus fleets in Berlin. Other steps on the path to the zero emission ship of the future are already in preparation. This year, AIDAnova will receive the first fuel cell to be used on an ocean-going cruise ship. In 2022, the largest battery storage system to date in cruise shipping will go into operation on board an AIDA ship, similar to advances in battery-electric ferries in the U.S. In addition, the company is already addressing the question of how renewable fuels can be used on board cruise ships in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Work From Home Energy Consumption is driving higher electricity bills as residential usage rises. Smart meter data, ISO-New-England trends, and COVID-19 telecommuting show stronger power demand and sensitivity to utility rates across regions.

Key Points

Higher household electricity use from telecommuting, shifting load to residences and raising utility bills.

✅ Smart meters show 5-22 percent residential usage increases.

✅ Commercial demand fell as home cooling and IT loads rose.

✅ Utility rates and AC use drive bill spikes during summer.

Don't be surprised if your electric bills are looking higher than usual, with a sizable increase in the amount of power that you have used.

Summer traditionally is a peak period for electricity usage because of folks' need to run fans and air-conditioners to cool their homes or run that pool pump. But the arrival of the coronavirus and people working from home is adding to amount of power people are using.

Under normal conditions, those who work in their employer's offices might not be cooling their homes as much during the middle of the day or using as much electricity for lights and running computers.

For many, that's changed.

Estimates on how much of an increase residential electric customers are seeing as result of working from home vary widely.

ISO-New England, the regional electric grid operator, has seen a 3 percent to 5 percent decrease in commercial and industrial power demand, even as the grid overseer issued pandemic warnings nationally. The expectation is that much of that decrease translates into a corresponding increase in residential electricity usage.

But other estimates put the increase in residential electricity usage much higher. A Washington state company that makes smart electric meters, Itron, estimates that American households are using 5 percent to 10 percent more electricity per month since March, when many people began working from home as part of an effort to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Another smart metering company, Cambridge, Mass.-based Sense, found that average home electricity usage increased 22 percent in April compared to the same period in 2019, a reflection of people using more electricity while they stayed home. Based on its analysis of data from 5,000 homes across 30 states, Sense officials said a typical customer's monthly electric bill increased by between $22 and $25, with a larger increase for consumers in states with higher electricity rates.

Connecticut-specfic data is harder to come by.

Officials with Orange-based United Illuminating declined to provide any customer usage data, though, like others in the power industry, they did acknowledge that residential customers are using more electricity. And the state's other large electric distribution utility, Eversource, was unable to provide any recent data on residential electric usage. The company did tell Connecticut utility regulators there was a 3 percent increase in residential power usage for the week of March 21 compared to the week before.

Over the same time period, Eversource officials saw a 3 percent decrease in power usage by commercial and industrial customers.

Separately, nuclear plant workers raised concerns about pandemic precautions at some facilities, reflecting operational strains.

Alan Behm of Cheshire said he normally uses 597 kilowatt hours of electricity during an average month. But in April of this year, the amount of electricity he used rose by nearly 51 percent.

With many offices closed, the expense of heating, cooking and lighting is being shifted from employer to employee, and some utilities such as Manitoba Hydro have pursued unpaid days off to trim costs during the pandemic. And one remote work expert believes some companies are recognizing the burden those added costs are placing on workers -- and are trying to do something about it.

Technology giant Google announced in late May that it was giving employees who work from home $1,000 allowances to cover equipment costs and other expenses associated with establishing a home office.

Moe Vela, chief transparency officer for the New York City-based computer software company TransparentBusiness, said the move by Google executives is a savvy one.

"Google is very smart to have figured this out," Vela said. "This is what employees want, especially millenials. People are so much happier to be working remotely, getting those two to three hours back per day that some people spend getting to and from work is so much more important than a stipend."

Vela predicted that even after a vaccine is found for the corona virus, one of the key worklife changes is likely to be a broader acceptance of telework and working from home.

Beyond the immediate shifts, more young Canadians would work in electricity if awareness improved, pointing to future talent pipelines.

"I think that's where we're headed," he said. "I think it will make an employer more attractive as they try to attract talent from around the world."

Vela said employers save an average of $11,000 per year for each employee they have working from home.

"It would be a brilliant move if a company were to share some of that amount with employees," he said. "I wouldn't do it if it's going to cause a company to not be there (in business) though."

The idea of a company sharing whatever savings it achieves by having employees work from home wasn't well received by many Connecticut residents who responded to questions posed via social media by Hearst Connecticut Media. More than 100 people responded and an overwhelming number of people spoke out against the idea.

"You are saving on gas and other travel related expenses, so the small increase in your electric bill shouldn't really be a concern," said Kathleen Bennett Charest of Wallingford.

Jim Krupp, also of Wallingford, said, "to suggest that the employers compensate the employees makes as much sense as suggesting that the employees should take a pay cut due to their reduced expenses for travel, day care, and eating lunch at work."

"Employers must still maintain their offices and incur all of the fixed expenses involved, including basic utilities, taxes and insurance," Krupp said. "The cost savings (for employers) that are realized are also offset by increased costs of creating and maintaining IT networks that allow employees to access their work sites from home and the costs of monitoring and managing the work force."

Kiki Nichols Nugent of Cheshire said she was against the idea of an employee trying to get their employer to pay for the increased electricity costs associated with working from home.

"I would not nickle and dime," Nugent said. "If companies are saving on electricity now, maybe employers will give better raises next year."

New Haven resident Chris Smith said he is "just happy to have a job where I am able to telecommute."

"When teleworking becomes more the norm, either now or in the future, we may see increased wages for teleworkers either for the lower cost to the employer or for the increase in productivity it brings," Smith said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News