BC Hydro still in dark about cause of blackout

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

Key Points

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

✅ Applies per kWh and per GJ based on consumption

✅ Recovers unpaid balances from 2020-21 bill deferrals

✅ Collected via AESO and the Balancing Pool under AUC oversight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

BC Ferries Electrification accelerates zero-emission vessels, Canada Infrastructure Bank financing, and fast charging infrastructure to cut greenhouse gas emissions, lower operating costs, and reduce noise across British Columbia's Island-class routes.

Key Points

BC Ferries Electrification is the plan to deploy zero-emission ferries and charging, funded by CIB, to reduce emissions.

✅ $75M CIB loan funds four electric ferries and chargers

✅ Cuts 9,000 tonnes CO2e annually on short Island-class routes

✅ Quieter service, lower operating costs, and redeployed hybrids

British Columbia is taking a significant step towards a cleaner transportation future with the electrification of its ferry fleet. BC Ferries, the province's ferry operator, has secured a $75 million loan from the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) to fund the purchase of four zero-emission ferries and the necessary charging infrastructure to support them.

This marks a turning point for BC Ferries, which currently operates a fleet reliant on diesel fuel. The new Island-class electric ferries will be deployed on shorter routes, replacing existing hybrid ships on those routes. These hybrid ferries will then be redeployed on routes that haven't yet been converted to electric, maximizing their lifespan and efficiency.

Environmental Benefits

The transition to electric ferries is expected to deliver significant environmental benefits. The new vessels are projected to eliminate an estimated 9,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually, and electric ships on the B.C. coast already demonstrate similar gains, contributing to British Columbia's ambitious climate goals. Additionally, the quieter operation of electric ferries will create a more pleasant experience for passengers and reduce noise pollution for nearby communities.

Economic Considerations

The CIB loan plays a crucial role in making this project financially viable. The low-interest rate offered by the CIB will help to keep ferry fares more affordable for passengers. Additionally, the long-term operational costs of electric ferries are expected to be lower than those of diesel-powered vessels, providing economic benefits in the long run.

Challenges and Opportunities

While the electrification of BC Ferries is a positive development, there are some challenges to consider. The upfront costs of electric ferries and charging infrastructure are typically higher than those of traditional options, though projects such as the Kootenay Lake ferry show growing readiness. However, advancements in battery technology are constantly lowering costs, making electric ferries a more cost-effective choice over time.

Moreover, the transition presents opportunities for job creation in the clean energy sector, with complementary initiatives like the hydrogen project broadening demand. The development, construction, and maintenance of electric ferries and charging infrastructure will require skilled workers, potentially creating a new avenue for economic growth in British Columbia.

A Pioneering Example

BC Ferries' electrification initiative sets a strong precedent for other ferry operators worldwide, including Washington State Ferries pursuing hybrid-electric upgrades. This project demonstrates the feasibility and economic viability of transitioning to cleaner marine transportation solutions. As battery technology and charging infrastructure continue to develop, we can expect to see more widespread adoption of electric ferries across the globe.

The collaboration between BC Ferries and the CIB paves the way for a greener future for BC's transportation sector, where efforts like Harbour Air's electric aircraft complement marine electrification. With cleaner air, quieter operation, and a positive impact on climate change, this project is a win for the environment, the economy, and British Columbia as a whole.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Site C Dam Update outlines hydroelectric budget overruns, geotechnical risks, COVID-19 construction delays, BC Hydro timelines, cancellation costs, and First Nations treaty rights concerns affecting renewable energy, ratepayers, and Peace Valley impacts.

Key Points

Overview of Site C costs, delays, geotechnical risks, and concerns shaping BC Hydro hydroelectric plans.

✅ Cost to cancel estimated at least $10B

✅ Final budget now about $16B; completion pushed to 2025

✅ COVID-19 and geotechnical risks drove delays and redesigns

The cost to cancel a massive B.C. energy development project would be at least $10 billion, provincial officials revealed in an update on the future of Site C.

Thus the project will go ahead, Premier John Horgan and Energy Minister Bruce Ralston announced Friday, but with an increased budget and timeline.

Horgan and Ralston spoke at a news conference in Victoria about the findings of a status report into the hydroelectric dam project in northeastern B.C.

Peter Milburn, former deputy finance minister, finished the report earlier this year, but the findings were not initially made public.

$10B more than initial estimate
On Friday, it was announced that the project's final price tag has once again ballooned by billions of dollars.

Site C was initially estimated to cost $6 billion, and the first approved budget, back in 2014, was $8.775 billion. The budget increased to $10.8 billion in 2018.

But the latest update suggests it will cost about $16 billion in total.

And, in addition to a higher budget, the date of completion has been pushed back to 2025 – a year later than the initial target.

Among the reasons for the revisions, according to the province, is the impact of COVID-19. While officials did not get into details, there have been multiple cases of the disease publicly reported at Site C work camps.

Additionally, fewer workers were permitted on site to allow for physical distancing, and construction was scaled back.

Also cited as a cause for the increased cost were "unforeseeable" geotechnical issues at the site, which required installation of an enhanced drainage system.

Speaking to reporters Friday, the premier deflected blame.

“Managing the contract the BC Liberals signed has been difficult because it transfers the vast majority of the geotechnical risk back to BC Hydro,” said Horgan.

Former Premier Christy Clark vowed to get the project to a point of no return, and in 2017 the NDP decided to continue with the project because of the cost of cancelling it.

The Liberals now say the clean energy project should continue, but deny they shoulder any of the blame.

“Someone has to take ownership – and it's got to be government in power,” said MLA Tom Shypitka, BC Liberal critic for energy. 

There are also several reviews underway, including how to change contractor schedules to reflect delays and potential cost impacts from COVID-19, and how to keep the work environment safe during the pandemic.

A total of 17 recommendations were made in Milburn's report, all of which have been accepted by BC Hydro and the province.

Among these recommendations is a restructured project assurance board with a focus on skill-specific membership and autonomy from BC Hydro.

Cost of cancelling the project
The report looked into whether it would be better to scrap the project altogether, but the cost of cancelling it at this point would be at least $10 billion, Horgan and Ralston said.

That cost does not include replacing lost energy and capacity that Site C's electricity would have provided, according to the province.

A study conducted in 2019 suggested B.C. will need to double its electricity production by 2055, especially as drought conditions are forcing BC Hydro to adapt power generation. 

The NDP government says the cost to ratepayers of cancelling the project would be $216 a year for 10 years. Going forward will still have a cost, but instead, that payment will be split over more than 70 years, the estimated lifetime of Site C, meaning BC Hydro customers will pay about $36 more a year once the site goes live, the NDP says, even as cryptocurrency mining raises questions about electricity use.

“We will not put jobs at risk; we will not shock people's hydro bills,” said Horgan.

"Our government has taken this situation very seriously, and with the advice of independent experts guiding us, I am confident in the path forward for Site C," Ralston said.

"B.C. needs more renewable energy to bridge the electricity gap with Alberta and electrify our economy, transition away from fossil fuels and meet our climate targets."

The minister said the site is currently employing about 4,500 people.

Arguments against Site C
While there are benefits to the project, there has also been vocal opposition.

In a statement released following the announcement that the project would go ahead, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs suggested the decision violated the premier's commitment to a UN declaration.

"The Site C dam has never had the free, prior and informed consent of all impacted First Nations, and proceeding with the project is a clear infringement of the treaty rights of the West Moberly First Nation," the UBCIC's secretary treasurer said.

Kukpi7 Judy Wilson said the UN's Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has called for a suspension of the project until it has the consent of Indigenous peoples.

"B.C. did not even attempt to engage First Nations about the safety risks associated with the stability of the dam in the recent reviews," she said.

"It is unfathomable that such clear human rights violations are somehow OK by this government."

Chief Roland Wilson of the West Moberly First Nation said he was disappointed the province didn’t consult his and other communities prior to making this announcement. In an interview with CTV News, he said he was offered an opportunity to join a call this morning.

“We signed a treaty in 1814,” he said. “Our treaty rights are being trampled on.”

Wilson said his nation has ongoing concerns about safety issues and the plans to flood the Peace Valley. West Moberly is in a bitter court battle with the province.

At the BC Legislature, Green Party Leader Sonia Furstenau slammed the government’s decision.

“It is an astonishingly terrible business case in any circumstances, but considering that we lose the agricultural land, the biodiversity, the traditional treaty lands of Treaty 8, this is particularly catastrophic,” she told reporters.

She went on to accuse the NDP government of keeping bad news from the public. She alleged the NDP knew of serious problems before last fall’s unscheduled election, but chose not to release information.

Prior to the decision former BC Hydro president and a former federal fisheries minister are among those who added their voices to calls to halt work on the dam.

They were among 18 Canadians who wrote an open letter to the province calling for an independent team of experts to explore geotechnical problems at the site.

In the letter, signed in September, the group that also included Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the UBCIC wrote that going ahead would be a "costly and potentially catastrophic mistake." 

According to Friday's update, independent experts have confirmed the site is safe, though improvements have been recommended to enhance oversight and risk management.

Earlier in the project, a B.C. First Nation claimed it was a $1-billion treaty violation, though an agreement was reached in 2020 after the province promised to improve land management and restore traditional place names in areas of cultural significance.

The Prophet River First Nation will also receive payments while the site is operating, and some Crown land will be transferred to the nation as part of the agreement. 

Additionally, residents of a tiny community not far from the site is suing the province over two slow-moving landslides they claim caused property values to plummet.

Nearly three dozen residents of Old Fort are behind the allegations of negligence and breach of their charter right to security of person. The claim is tied to two landslides, in 2018 and 2020, that the group alleges were caused by ground destabilization from construction related to Site C.

One of the landslides damaged the only road into the community, leaving residents under evacuation for a month.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Canadian Energy Infrastructure Tariffs are reshaping pipelines, deregulation, and energy independence, as U.S. trade tensions accelerate approvals for Alberta oil sands, Trans Mountain expansion, and CAPP proposals amid regulatory reform and market diversification.

Key Points

U.S. tariff threats drive approvals, infrastructure, and diversification to strengthen Canada energy security.

✅ Tariff risk boosts support for pipelines and export routes

✅ Faster project approvals and deregulation gain political backing

✅ Diversifying markets reduces reliance on U.S. buyers

In recent months, the Canadian energy sector has experienced a shift in public and political attitudes toward infrastructure projects, particularly those related to oil and gas production. This shift has been largely influenced by the threat of tariffs from the United States, as well as growing concerns about energy independence and U.S.-Canada trade tensions more broadly.

Scott Burrows, the CEO of Pembina Pipeline Corp., noted in a conference call that the potential for U.S. tariffs on Canadian energy imports has spurred a renewed sense of urgency and receptiveness toward energy infrastructure projects in Canada. With U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs Trump tariff threat on Canadian imports, particularly a 10% tariff on energy products, there is increasing recognition within Canada that these projects are essential for the country’s long-term economic and energy security.

While the direct impact of the tariffs is not immediate, industry leaders are optimistic about the long-term benefits of deregulation and faster project approvals, even as some see Biden as better for Canada’s energy sector overall. Burrows highlighted that while it will take time for the full effects to materialize, there are significant "tailwinds" in favor of faster energy infrastructure development. This includes the possibility of more streamlined regulatory processes and a shift toward more efficient project timelines, which could significantly benefit the Canadian energy sector.

This changing landscape is particularly important for Alberta’s oil production, which is one of the largest contributors to Canada’s energy output. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) has responded to the growing tariff threat by releasing an “energy platform,” outlining recommendations for Ottawa to help mitigate the risks posed by the evolving trade situation. The platform includes calls for improved infrastructure, such as pipelines and transportation systems, and priorities like clean grids and batteries, to ensure that Canadian energy can reach global markets more effectively.

The tariff threat has also sparked a wider conversation about the need for Canada to strengthen its energy infrastructure and reduce its dependency on the U.S. for energy exports. With the potential for escalating trade tensions, there is a growing push for Canadian energy resources to be processed and utilized more domestically, though cutting Quebec’s energy exports during a tariff war. This has led to increased political support for projects like the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which aims to connect Alberta’s oil sands to new markets in Asia via the west coast.

However, the energy sector’s push for deregulation and quicker approvals has raised concerns among environmental groups and Indigenous communities. Critics argue that fast-tracking energy projects could lead to inadequate environmental assessments and greater risks to local ecosystems. These concerns underscore the tension between economic development and environmental protection in the energy sector.

Despite these concerns, there is a clear consensus that Canada’s energy industry needs to evolve to meet the challenges posed by shifting trade dynamics, even as polls show support for energy and mineral tariffs in the current dispute. The proposed U.S. tariffs have made it increasingly clear that the country’s energy infrastructure needs significant investment and modernization to ensure that Canada can maintain its status as a reliable and competitive energy supplier on the global stage.

As the deadline for the tariff decision approaches, and as Ford threatens to cut U.S. electricity exports, Canada’s energy sector is bracing for the potential fallout, while also preparing to capitalize on any opportunities that may arise from the changing trade environment. The next few months will be critical in determining how Canadian policymakers, businesses, and environmental groups navigate the complex intersection of energy, trade, and regulatory reform.

While the threat of U.S. tariffs may be unsettling, it is also serving as a catalyst for much-needed changes in Canada’s energy policy. The push for faster approvals and deregulation may help address some of the immediate concerns facing the sector, but it will be crucial for the government to balance economic interests with environmental and social considerations as the country moves forward in its energy transition.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EU Electricity Market Reform CFDs seek stable prices via contracts for difference, balancing renewables and nuclear, shielding consumers, and boosting competitiveness as France and Germany clash over scope, grid expansion, and hydrogen production.

Key Points

EU framework using contracts for difference to stabilize power prices, support renewables and nuclear, and protect users.

✅ Guarantees strike prices for new low-carbon generation

✅ Balances consumer protection with industrial competitiveness

✅ Disputed scope: nuclear inclusion, grids, hydrogen eligibility

Despite record temperatures this October, Europe is slowly shifting towards winter - its second since the Ukraine war started and prompted Russia to cut gas supplies to the continent amid an energy crisis that has reshaped policy.

After prices surged last winter, when gas and electricity bills “nearly doubled in all EU capitals”, the EU decided to take emergency measures to limit prices.

In March, the European Commission proposed a reform to revamp the electricity market “to boost renewables, better protect consumers and enhance industrial competitiveness”.

However, France and Germany are struggling to find a compromise as rolling back prices is tougher than it appears and the clock is ticking as European energy ministers prepare to meet on 17 October in Luxembourg.

The controversy around CFDs
At the heart of the issue are contracts for difference (CFDs).

By providing a guaranteed price for electricity, CFDs aim to support investment in renewable energy projects.

France - having 56 nuclear reactors - is lobbying for nuclear energy to be included in the CFDs, but this has caught the withering eye of Germany.

Berlin suspects Paris of wanting an exception that would give its industry a competitive advantage and plead that it should only apply to new investments.

France wants ‘to regain control of the price’
The disagreement is at the heart of the bilateral talks in Hamburg, which started on Monday, between the French and German governments.

French President Emmanuel Macron promised “to regain control of the price of electricity, at the French and European level” and outlined a new pricing scheme in a speech at the end of September.

As gas electricity is much more expensive than nuclear electricity, France might be tempted to switch to a national system rather than a European one after a deal with EDF on prices to be more competitive economically.

However, France is "confident" that it will reach an agreement with Germany on electricity market reforms, Macron said on Friday.

Siding with France are other pro-nuclear countries such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland, while Germany can count on the support of Austria, Luxembourg, Belgium and Italy amid opposition from nine EU countries to treating market reforms as a price fix.

But even if a last-minute agreement is reached, the two countries’ struggles over energy are creeping into all current European negotiations on the subject.

Germany wants a massive extension of electricity grids on the continent so that it can import energy; France is banking on energy sovereignty and national production.

France wants to be able to use nuclear energy to produce clean hydrogen, while Germany is reluctant, and so on.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News