Cyberthreats said to be increasing against grid

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)

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Australian Electric Vehicle Sales tripled in 2019 amid expanding charging infrastructure and more models, but market share remains low, constrained by limited government policy, weak incentives, and absent emissions standards despite growing ultra-fast chargers.

Key Points

EV units sold in Australia; in 2019 they tripled to 6,718, but market share was just 0.6%.

✅ Sales rose from 2,216 (2018) to 6,718 (2019); ~80% were BEVs.

✅ Public charging sites reached 2,307; fast chargers up 40% year-on-year.

✅ Policy gaps and absent standards limit model supply and EV uptake.

Sales of electric vehicles in Australia tripled in 2019 despite a lack of government support, according to the industry’s peak body.

The country’s network of EV charging stations was also growing, the Electric Vehicle Council’s annual report found, including a rise in the number of faster charging stations that let drivers recharge a car in about 15 minutes.

But the report, released on Wednesday, found the market share for electric vehicles was still only 0.6% of new vehicle sales – well behind the 2.5% to 5% in other developed countries.

The chief executive of the council, Behyad Jafari, said the rise in sales was down to more models becoming available. There are now 28 electric models on sale, with eight priced below $65,000.

Six more were due to arrive before the end of 2021, including two priced below $50,000, the council’s report said.

“We have repeatedly heard from car companies that they were planning to bring vehicles here, but Australia doesn’t have that policy support.”

The Morrison government promised a national electric vehicle strategy would be finalised by the middle of this year, but the policy has been delayed. The prime minister, Scott Morrison, last year accused Labor of wanting to “end the weekend” and force people out of four-wheel drives after the opposition set a target of 50% of new car sales being electric by 2030.

Jafari cited the Kia e-Niro – an award-winning electric SUV that was being prepared for an Australian launch, but is now reportedly on hold because the manufacturer favoured shipping to countries with emissions standards.

The council’s members include BMW, Nissan, Hyundai and Harley Davidson, as well as energy, technology and charging infrastructure companies.

Sales of electric vehicles – which include plug-in hybrids – went from 2,216 in 2018 to 6,718 in 2019, the report said. Jafari said about 80% of those sales were all-electric vehicles.

There have been 3,226 electric vehicles sold in 2020, the report said, despite an overall drop of 20% in vehicle sales due to the Covid-19 pandemic, while U.S. EV sales have surged into 2024.

Jafari said: “Our report is showing that Australian consumers want these cars.

“There is no controversy that the future of the industry is electric, but at the moment the industry is looking at different markets. We want policies that show [Australia] is going on this journey.”

Government agency data has forecast that half the new cars sold will be electric by 2035, underscoring that the age of electric cars is arriving even if there is no policy to support their uptake.

Manufacturers currently selling electric cars in Australia are Nissan, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, Tesla, Volvo, Porsche, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar and Renault, the report said.

Jafari said most G20 countries had emissions standards in place for vehicles sold and incentives in place to support electric vehicles, such as rebates or exemptions from charges. This hadn’t happened in Australia, he said.

The report said: “Globally, carmakers are rolling out more electric vehicle models as the electric car market expands, but so far production cannot keep up with demand. This means that without policy signals, Australians will continue to be denied access to the full global range of electric vehicles.”

On Tuesday, one Australian charging provider, Evie Networks, opened an ultra-fast station at a rest stop at Campbell Town in Tasmania – between Launceston and Hobart.

The company said the station would connect EV owners in the state’s north and south and the two 350kW chargers could recharge a vehicle in 15 minutes, highlighting whether grids have the power to charge EVs at scale. Two more sites were planned for Tasmania, the company said.

A Tasmanian government grant to support electric vehicle charging had helped finance the site. Evie was also supported with a $15m grant from the federal government’s Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

According to the council report, Australia now has 2,307 public charging stations, including 357 fast chargers – a rise of 40% in the past year.

A survey of 2,900 people in New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria and South Australia, carried out by NRMA, RACV and RAA on behalf of the council, found the main barriers to buying an electric vehicle were concerns over access to charging points, higher prices and uncertainty over driving range.

Consumers favoured electric vehicles because of their environmental footprint, lower maintenance costs and vehicle performance.

The report said the average battery range of electric vehicles available in Australia was 400km, but almost 80% of people thought the average was less.

According to the survey, 56% of Australians would consider an electric car when they next bought a vehicle, and in the UK, EV inquiries soared during a fuel supply crisis.

“We are far behind, but it is surmountable,” Jafari said.

The council report also rated state and territories on the policies that supported its industry and found the ACT was leading, followed by NSW and Queensland.

A review of commercial electric vehicle use found public electric bus trials were planned or under way in Queensland, NSW, WA, Victoria and ACT. There are now more than 400,000 electric buses in use around the globe.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

California Nuclear Renewable Bill AB 2898 seeks to add nuclear to the Renewables Portfolio Standard, impacting Diablo Canyon, PG&E compliance, carbon-free targets, and potential license extensions while addressing climate goals and natural gas reliance.

Key Points

A bill to add nuclear to California's RPS, influencing Diablo Canyon, PG&E planning, and carbon-free climate targets.

✅ Reclassifies nuclear as renewable in California's RPS.

✅ Could influence Diablo Canyon license extension and ownership.

✅ Targets carbon-free goals while limiting natural gas reliance.

Although he admits it's a long shot, a member of the California Legislature from the district that includes the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant has introduced a bill that would add nuclear power to the state's list of renewable energy sources.

"I think that nuclear power is an important component of generating large-scale electricity that's good for the environment," said Jordan Cunningham, R-San Luis Obispo. "Without nuclear as part of the renewable portfolio, we're going to have tremendous difficulty meeting the state's climate goals without a significant cost increase on electricity ratepayers."

Established in 2002, California's Renewables Portfolio Standard spells out the power sources eligible to count toward the state's goals to wean itself of fossil fuels. The list includes solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, small hydroelectric facilities and even tidal currents. The standard has been updated, currently calling for 60 percent of California's electricity to come from renewables by 2030 and 100 percent from carbon-free sources by 2045, even as some analyses argue net-zero emissions may be difficult to achieve without nuclear power.

Nuclear power is not part of the portfolio standard and Diablo Canyon — the only remaining nuclear plant in California — is scheduled to stop producing electricity by 2025, even as some Southern California plant closures face postponement to maintain grid reliability.

Pacific Gas & Electric, the operators of Diablo Canyon, announced in 2016 an agreement with a collection of environmental and labor groups to shut down the plant, often framed as part of a just transition for workers and communities. PG&E said Diablo will become uneconomical to run due to changes in California's power grid — such as growth of renewable energy sources, increased energy efficiency measures and the migration of customers from traditional utilities to community choice energy programs.

But Cunningham thinks the passage of Assembly Bill 2898, which he introduced last week, — as innovators like Bill Gates' mini-reactor venture tout new designs — could give the plant literally a new lease on life.

"If PG&E were able to count the power produced (at Diablo) toward its renewable goals, it might — I'm not saying it will or would, but it might — cause them to reconsider applying to extend the operating license at Diablo," Cunningham said.

Passing the bill, supporters say, could also make Diablo Canyon attractive to an outside investor to purchase and then apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license extension.

But nuclear power has long generated opposition in California and AB 2898 will face long odds in Sacramento, and similar efforts elsewhere have drawn opposition from power producers as well. The Legislature is dominated by Democrats, who have expressed more interest in further developing wind and solar energy projects than offering a lifeline to nuclear.

And if the bill managed to generate momentum, anti-nuclear groups will certainly be quick to mobilize, reflecting a national energy debate over Three Mile Island and whether to save struggling plants.

When told of Cunningham's bill, David Weisman, outreach coordinator for the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, said flatly, "Diablo Canyon has become a burdensome, costly nuclear white elephant."

Critics say nuclear power by definition cannot be considered renewable because it leaves behind waste in the form of spent nuclear fuel that then has to be stored, while supporters point to next-gen nuclear designs that aim to improve safety and costs. The federal government has not found a site to deposit the waste that has built up over decades from commercial nuclear power plants.

Even though Diablo Canyon is the only nuclear plant left in the Golden State, it accounts for 9 percent of California's power mix. Cunningham says if the plant closes, the state's reliance on natural gas — a fossil fuel — will increase, pointing to what happened when the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station closed.

In 2011, the final full year operations for San Onofre, nuclear accounted for 18.2 percent of in-state generation and natural gas made up 45.4 percent. The following year, nuclear dropped to 9.3 percent and gas shot up to 61.1 percent of in-state generation.

"If we're going to get serious about being a national leader as California has been on dealing with climate change, I think nuclear is part of the answer," Cunningham said.

But judging from the response to an email from the Union-Tribune, PG&E isn't exactly embracing Cunningham's bill.

"We remain focused on safely and reliably operating Diablo Canyon Power Plant until the end of its current operating licenses and planning for a successful decommissioning," said Suzanne Hosn, a PG&E senior manager at Diablo Canyon. "The Assemblyman's proposal does not change any of PG&E's plans for the plant."

Cunningham concedes AB 2898 is "a Hail Mary pass" but said "it's an important conversation that needs to be had."

The second-term assemblyman introduced a similar measure late last year that sought to have the Legislature bring the question before voters as an amendment to the state constitution. But the legislation, which would require a two-thirds majority vote in the Assembly and the Senate, is still waiting for a committee assignment.

AB 2898, on the other hand, requires a simple majority to move through the Legislature. Cunningham said he hopes the bill will receive a committee assignment by the end of next month.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Electricity Transition faces surging demand, GHG targets, and federal regulations, balancing natural gas, renewables, battery storage, and grid reliability while pursuing net-zero by 2035 and cost-effective decarbonization for industry, EVs, and growing populations.

Key Points

Ontario Electricity Transition is the province's shift to a reliable, low-GHG grid via renewables, storage, and policy.

✅ Demand up 75% by 2050; procurement adds 4,000 MW capacity.

✅ Gas use rises to 25% by 2030, challenging GHG goals.

✅ Tripling wind and solar with storage can cut costs and emissions.

Ontario's electricity sector stands at a pivotal crossroads. Once a leader in clean energy, the province now faces the dual challenge of meeting surging demand while adhering to stringent greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets. Recent developments, including the expansion of natural gas infrastructure and proposed federal regulations, have intensified debates about the future of Ontario's energy landscape, as this analysis explains in detail.

Rising Demand and the Need for Expansion

Ontario's electricity demand is projected to increase by 75% by 2050, equivalent to adding four and a half cities the size of Toronto to the grid. This surge is driven by factors such as industrial electrification, population growth, and the transition to electric vehicles. In response, as Ontario confronts a looming shortfall in the coming years, the provincial government has initiated its most ambitious energy procurement plan to date, aiming to secure an additional 4,000 megawatts of capacity by 2030. This includes investments in battery storage and natural gas generation to ensure grid reliability during peak demand periods.

The Role of Natural Gas: A Controversial Bridge

Natural gas has become a cornerstone of Ontario's strategy to meet immediate energy needs. However, this reliance comes with environmental costs. The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) projects that by 2030, natural gas will account for 25% of Ontario's electricity supply, up from 4% in 2017. This shift raises concerns about the province's ability to meet its GHG reduction targets and to embrace clean power in practice. 

The expansion of gas-fired plants, including broader plans for new gas capacity, such as the Portlands Energy Centre in Toronto, has sparked public outcry. Environmental groups argue that these expansions could undermine local emissions reduction goals and exacerbate health issues related to air quality. For instance, emissions from the Portlands plant have surged from 188,000 tonnes in 2017 to over 600,000 tonnes in 2021, with projections indicating a potential increase to 1.65 million tonnes if the expansion proceeds as planned. 

Federal Regulations and Economic Implications

The federal government's proposed clean electricity regulations aim to achieve a net-zero electricity sector by 2035. However, Ontario's government has expressed concerns that these regulations could impose significant financial burdens. An analysis by the IESO suggests that complying with the new rules would require doubling the province's electricity generation capacity, potentially adding $35 billion in costs by 2050, while other estimates suggest that greening Ontario's grid could cost $400 billion over time. This could result in higher residential electricity bills, ranging from $132 to $168 annually starting in 2033.

Pathways to a Sustainable Future

Experts advocate for a diversified approach to decarbonization that balances environmental goals with economic feasibility. Investments in renewable energy sources, such as new wind and solar resources, along with advancements in energy storage technologies, are seen as critical components of a sustainable energy strategy. Additionally, implementing energy efficiency measures and modernizing grid infrastructure can enhance system resilience and reduce emissions. 

The Ontario Clean Air Alliance proposes phasing out gas power by 2035 through a combination of tripling wind and solar capacity and investing in energy efficiency and storage solutions. This approach not only aims to reduce emissions but also offers potential cost savings compared to continued reliance on gas-fired generation. 

Ontario's journey toward a decarbonized electricity grid is fraught with challenges, including balancing reliability, clean, affordable electricity, and environmental sustainability. While natural gas currently plays a significant role in meeting the province's energy needs, its long-term viability as a bridge fuel remains contentious. The path forward will require careful consideration of technological innovations, regulatory frameworks, and public engagement to ensure a clean, reliable, and economically viable energy future for all Ontarians.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Wall Street Fossil Fuel Pivot signals banks reassessing ESG, net-zero, and decarbonization goals, reviving oil, gas, and coal financing while recalibrating clean energy exposure amid policy shifts, regulatory rollbacks, and investment risk realignment.

Key Points

A shift as major U.S. banks ease ESG limits to fund oil, gas, coal while rebalancing alongside renewables.

✅ Banks revisit lending to oil, gas, and coal after policy shifts.

✅ ESG and net-zero commitments face reassessment amid returns.

✅ Renewables compete for capital as risk models are updated.

The global energy finance sector, worth a staggering $1.4 trillion, is undergoing a significant transformation, largely due to former President Donald Trump's renewed support for the oil, gas, and coal industries. Wall Street, which had previously aligned itself with global climate initiatives and the energy transition and net-zero goals, is now reassessing its strategy and pivoting toward a more fossil-fuel-friendly stance.

This shift represents a major change from the earlier stance, where many of the largest U.S. banks and financial institutions took a firm stance on decarbonization push, including limiting their exposure to fossil-fuel projects. Just a few years ago, these institutions were vocal supporters of the global push for a sustainable future, with many committing to support clean energy solutions and abandon investments in high-carbon energy sources.

However, with the change in administration and the resurgence of support for traditional energy sectors under Trump’s policies, these same banks are now rethinking their strategies. Financial institutions are increasingly discussing the possibility of lifting long-standing restrictions that limited their investments in controversial fossil-fuel projects, including coal mining, where emissions drop as coal declines, and offshore drilling. The change reflects a broader realignment within the energy finance sector, with Wall Street reexamining its role in shaping the future of energy.

One of the most significant developments is the Biden administration’s policy reversal, which emphasized reducing the U.S. carbon footprint in favor of carbon-free electricity strategies. Under Trump, however, there has been a renewed focus on supporting the traditional energy sectors. His administration has pushed to reduce regulatory burdens on fossil-fuel companies, particularly oil and gas, while simultaneously reintroducing favorable tax incentives for the coal and gas industries. This is a stark contrast to the Biden administration's efforts to incentivize the transition toward renewable energy and zero-emissions goals.

Trump's policies have, in effect, sent a strong signal to financial markets that the fossil-fuel industry could see a resurgence. U.S. banks, which had previously distanced themselves from financing oil and gas ventures due to the pressure from environmental activists and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investors, as seen in investor pressure on Duke Energy, are now reconsidering their positions. Major players like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs are reportedly having internal discussions about revisiting financing for energy projects that involve high carbon emissions, including controversial oil extraction and gas drilling initiatives.

The implications of this shift are far-reaching. In the past, a growing number of institutional investors had embraced ESG principles, with the goal of supporting the transition to renewable energy sources. However, Trump’s pro-fossil fuel stance appears to be emboldening Wall Street’s biggest players to rethink their commitment to green investing. Some are now advocating for a “balanced approach” that would allow for continued investment in traditional energy sectors, while also acknowledging the growing importance of renewable energy investments, a trend echoed by European oil majors going electric in recent years.

This reversal has led to confusion among investors and analysts, who are now grappling with how to navigate a rapidly changing landscape. Wall Street's newfound support for the fossil-fuel industry comes amid a backdrop of global concerns about climate change. Many investors, who had previously embraced policies aimed at curbing the effects of global warming, are now finding it harder to reconcile their environmental commitments with the shift toward fossil-fuel-heavy portfolios. The reemergence of fossil-fuel-friendly policies is forcing institutional investors to rethink their long-term strategies.

The consequences of this policy shift are also being felt by renewable energy companies, which now face increased competition for investment dollars from traditional energy sectors. The shift towards oil and gas projects has made it more challenging for renewable energy companies to attract the same level of financial backing, even as demand for clean energy continues to rise and as doubling electricity investment becomes a key policy call. This could result in a deceleration of renewable energy projects, potentially delaying the progress needed to meet the world’s climate targets.

Despite this, some analysts remain optimistic that the long-term shift toward green energy is inevitable, even if fossil-fuel investments gain a temporary boost. As the world continues to grapple with the effects of climate change, and as technological advancements in clean energy continue to reduce costs, the transition to renewables is likely to persist, regardless of the political climate.

The shift in Wall Street’s approach to energy investments, spurred by Trump’s pro-fossil fuel policies, is reshaping the $1.4 trillion global energy finance market. While the pivot towards fossil fuels may offer short-term gains, the long-term trajectory for energy markets remains firmly in the direction of renewables. The next few years will be crucial in determining whether financial institutions can balance the demand for short-term profitability with their long-term environmental responsibilities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Hydro One-Avista Merger outlines a utility acquisition shaped by Washington regulators, Colstrip coal plant depreciation, and plans for renewables, clean energy, and emissions cuts, while Montana reviews implications for jobs, ratepayers, and a 2027 closure.

Key Points

A utility deal setting Colstrip depreciation and renewables, without committing to an early coal plant closure.

✅ Washington sets 2027 depreciation for Colstrip units

✅ Montana reviews jobs, ratepayer impacts, community fund

✅ Avista seeks renewables; no binding shutdown commitment

The Washington power company Hydro One is buying will be ready to close its huge coal-fired generating station ahead of schedule, thanks to conditions put on the corporate merger by state regulators there.

Not that we actually plan to do that, the company is telling other regulators in Montana, where coal unit retirements are under debate, the huge coal-fired generating station in question employs hundreds of people. We’ll be in the coal business for a good long time yet.

Hydro One, in which the Ontario government now owns a big minority stake, is still working on its purchase of Avista, a private power utility based in Spokane. The $6.7-billion deal, which Hydro One announced in July, includes a 15 per cent share in two of the four generating units in a coal plant in Colstrip, Montana, one of the biggest in the western United States. Avista gets most of its electricity from hydro dams and gas but uses the Colstrip plant when demand for power is high and water levels at its dams are low.

#google#

Colstrip’s a town of fewer than 2,500 people whose industries are the power plant and the open-pit mines that feed it about 10 million tonnes of coal a year. Two of Colstrip’s generators, older ones Avista doesn’t have any stake in, are closing in 2022. The other two will be all that keep the town in business.

In Washington, they don’t like the coal plant and its pollution. In Montana, the future of Colstrip is a much bigger concern. The companies have to satisfy regulators in both places that letting Hydro One buy Avista is in the public interest.

Ontario proudly closed the last of our coal plants in 2014 and outlawed new ones as environmental menaces, and Alberta's coal phase-out is now slated to finish by 2023. When Hydro One said it was buying Avista, which makes about $100 million in profit a year, Premier Kathleen Wynne said she hoped Ontario’s “value system” would spread to Avista’s operations.

The settlement is “an important step towards bringing together two historic companies,” Hydro One’s chief executive Mayo Schmidt said in announcing it.

The deal has approval from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission staff but is subject to a vote by the group’s three commissioners. It doesn’t commit Avista to closing anything at Colstrip or selling its share. But Avista and Hydro One will budget as if the Colstrip coal burners will close in 2027, instead of running into the 2040s as their owners had once planned, a timeline that echoes debates over the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico.

In accounting terms, they’ll depreciate the value of their share of the plant to zero over the next nine years, reflecting what they say is the end of the plant’s “useful life.” Another of Colstrip’s owners, Puget Sound Energy, has previously agreed with Washington regulators that it’ll budget for a Colstrip closure in 2027 as well.

Avista and Hydro One will look for sources of 50 megawatts of renewable electricity, including independent power projects where feasible, in the next four years and another 90 megawatts to supplement Avista’s supply once the Colstrip plant eventually closes, they promise in Washington. They’ll put $3 million into a “community transition fund” for Colstrip.

The money will come from the companies’ profits and cash, the agreement says. “Hydro One will not seek cost recovery for such funds from ratepayers in Ontario,” it says specifically.

“Ontario has always been a global leader in the transition away from dirty coal power and towards clean energy,” said Doug Howell, an anti-coal campaigner with the Sierra Club, which is a party to the agreement. “This settlement continues that tradition, paving the way for the closure of the largest single source of climate pollution in the American West by 2027, if not earlier.”

Montanans aren’t as thrilled. That state has its own public services commission, doing its own examination of the corporate merger, which has asked Hydro One and Avista to explain in detail why they want to write off the value of the Colstrip burners early. The City of Colstrip has filed a petition saying it wants in on Montana hearings because “the potential closure of (Avista’s units) would be devastating to our community.”

Don’t get too worked up, an Avista vice-president urged the Montana commission just before Easter.

“Just because an asset is depreciated does not mean that one would otherwise remove that asset from service if the asset is still performing as intended,” Jason Thackston testified in a session that dealt only with what the deal with Washington state would mean to Colstrip. We’re talking strictly about an accounting manoeuvre, not an operational commitment.

Six joint owners will have to agree to close the Colstrip generators and there’s “no other tacit understanding or unstated agreement” to do that, he said.

Besides Washington and Montana, state regulators in Idaho, including those overseeing the Idaho Power settlement process, Alaska and Oregon and multiple federal authorities have to sign off on the deal before it can happen. Hydro One hopes it’ll be done in the second half of this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News