Water an issue for some renewable projects

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

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

CPUC Exit Fee Increase for CCAs adjusts the PCIA, affecting utilities, San Diego ratepayers, renewable energy procurement, customer equity, and cost allocation, while providing regulatory certainty for Community Choice Aggregation programs and clean energy goals.

Key Points

A CPUC-approved change raising PCIA exit fees paid by CCAs to utilities, balancing cost shifts and customer equity.

✅ PCIA rises from about 2.5c to roughly 4.25c per kWh in San Diego

✅ Aims to reduce cost shifts and protect non-CCA customers

✅ Offers regulatory certainty for CCA launches and clean energy goals

The California Public Utilities Commission approved an increase on the exit fees charged to customers who take part in Community Choice Aggregation -- government-run alternatives to traditional utilities like San Diego Gas & Electric.

After reviewing two competing exit fee proposals, all five commissioners voted Thursday in favor of an adjustment that many CCA advocates predicted could hamper the growth of the community choice movement.

But minutes after the vote was announced, one of the leading voices in favor of the city San Diego establishing its own CCA said the decision was good news because it provides some regulatory certainty.

"For us in San Diego, it's a green light to move forward with community choice," said Nicole Capretz, executive director of the Climate Action Campaign. "For us, it's let's go, let's launch and let's give families a choice. We no longer have to wait."

Under the CCA model, utilities still maintain transmission and distribution lines (poles and wires, etc.) and handle customer billing. But officials in a given local government entity make the final decisions about what kind of power sources are purchased.

Once a CCA is formed, its customers must pay an exit fee -- called a Power Charge Indifference Adjustment -- to the legacy utility serving that particular region. The fee is included in customers' monthly bills.

The fee is required to offset the costs of the investments utilities made over the years for things like natural gas power plants, renewable energy facilities and other infrastructure.

Utilities argue if the exit fee is set too low, it does not fairly compensate them for their investments; if it's too high, CCAs complain it reduces the financial incentive for their potential customers.

The Public Utilities Commission chose to adopt a proposal that some said was more favorable to utilities, leading to complaints from CCA boosters.

"We see this will really throw sand in the gears in our ability to do things that can move us toward (climate change) goals," Jim Parks, staff member of Valley Clean Energy, a CCA based in Davis, said before the vote.

Commissioner Carla Peterman, who authored the proposal that passed, said she supports CCAs but stressed the commission has a "legal obligation" to make sure increased costs are not shouldered by "customers who do not, or cannot, join a CCA. Today's proposal ensures a more level playing field between customers."

As for what the vote means for the exit fee in San Diego, Peterman's office earlier in the week estimated the charge would rise from 2.5 cents a kilowatt-hour to about 4.25 cents.

The Clear the Air Coaltion, a San Diego County group critical of CCAs, said the newly established exit fee -- which goes into effect starting next year -- is "a step in the direction."

But the group, which includes the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, the San Diego County Taxpayers Association and lobbyists for Sempra Energy (the parent company of SDG&E), repeated concerns it has brought up before.

"If the city of San Diego decides to get into the energy business this decision means ratepayers in National City, Chula Vista, Carlsbad, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, El Cajon and all other neighboring communities would see higher energy bills, and San Diego taxpayers would be faced with mounting debt," coalition spokesman Tony Manolatos said in an email.

CCA supporters say community choice is critical in ensuring San Diego meets the pledge made by Mayor Kevin Faulconer to adopt the city's Climate Action Plan, mandating 100 percent of the city's electricity needs must come from renewable sources by 2035.

Now attention turns to Faulconer, who promised to make a decision on bringing a CCA proposal to the San Diego City Council only after the utilities commission made its decision.

A Faulconer spokesman said Thursday afternoon that the vote "provides the clarity we've been waiting for to move forward" but did not offer a specific time table.

"We're on schedule to reach Mayor Faulconer's goal of choosing a pathway that achieves our renewable energy goals while also protecting ratepayers, and the mayor looks forward to making his recommendation in the next few weeks," said Craig Gustafson, a Faulconer spokesman, in an email.

A feasibility study released last year predicted a CCA in San Diego has the potential to deliver cheaper rates over time than SDG&E's current service, while providing as much as 50 percent renewable energy by 2023 and 80 percent by 2027.

"The city has already figured out we are still capable of launching a program, having competitive, affordable rates and finally offering families a choice as to who their energy provider is," said Capretz, who helped draft an initial blueprint of the climate plan as a city staffer.

SDG&E has come to the city with a counterproposal that offers 100 percent renewables by 2035.

Thus far, the utility has produced a rough outline for a "tariff" program that would charge ratepayers the cost of delivering more clean sources of energy over time.

Some council members have expressed frustration more specifics have not been sketched out.

SDG&E officials said they will take the new exit fee into account as they go forward with their counterproposal to the city council.

Speaking in general about the utility commission's decision, SDG&E spokeswoman Helen Gao called it "a victory for our customers, as it minimizes the cost shifts that they have been burdened with under the existing fee formula.

"As commissioners noted in rendering their decision, reforming the (exit fee) addresses a customer-to-customer equity issue and has nothing to do with increasing profits for investor-owned utilities," Gao said in an email.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Power Grid Level 2 Alert signals AESO reserve power usage, load management, supply shortage from generator outages, low wind, and limited imports, urging peak demand conservation to avoid blackouts and preserve grid reliability.

Key Points

An AESO status where reserves power the grid and load management is used during supply constraints to prevent blackouts.

✅ Triggered by outages, low wind, and reduced import capacity

✅ Peak hours 4 to 7 pm saw conservation requests

✅ Several hundred MW margin from Level 3 load shedding

Alberta's energy grid ran on reserves Wednesday, after multiple factors led to a supply shortage, a scenario explored in U.S. grid COVID response discussions as operators plan for contingencies.

At 3:52 p.m. Wednesday, the Alberta Electric System Operator issued a Level 2 alert, meaning that reserves were being used to supply energy requirements and that load management procedures had been implemented, while operators elsewhere adopted Ontario power staffing lockdown measures during COVID-19 for continuity. The alert ended at 6:06 p.m.

"This is due to unplanned generator outages, low wind and a reduction of import capability," the agency said in a post to social media. "Supply is tight but still meeting demand."

AESO spokesperson Mike Deising said the intertie with Saskatchewan had tripped off, and an issue on the British Columbia side of the border, as seen during BC Hydro storm response events, meant the province couldn't import power. 

"There are no blackouts … this just means we're using our reserve power, and that's a standard procedure we'll deploy," he said. 

AESO had asked that people reduce their energy consumption between 4 and 7 p.m., similar to Cal ISO conservation calls during grid strain, which is typically when peak use occurs. 

Deising said the system was several hundred MWs away from needing to move to an alert Level 3, with utilities such as FortisAlberta precautions in place to support continuity, which is when power is cut off to some customers in order to keep the system operating. Deising said Level 2 alerts are fairly rare and occur every few years. The last Level 3 alert was in 2013. 

According to the supply and demand report on AESO's website, the load on the grid at 5 p.m. was 10,643 MW.

That's down significantly from last week, when a heat wave pushed demand to record highs on the grid, with loads in the 11,700 MW range, contrasting with Ontario demand drop during COVID when many stayed home. 

A heat warning was issued Wednesday for Edmonton and surrounding areas shortly before 4 p.m., with temperatures above 29 C expected over the next three days, with many households seeing residential electricity use up during such periods. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

US Termination of Ukraine Energy Grid Support signals a policy shift: USAID halts aid for grid restoration amid Russia attacks, impacting energy security, infrastructure resilience, winter readiness, and negotiations leverage with Moscow and allies.

Key Points

A US policy reversal ending USAID support for Ukraine's grid, impacting energy security, resilience, and leverage.

✅ USAID halt reduces funds for grid restoration and winter prep

✅ Policy shift may weaken Kyiv's leverage in talks with Russia

✅ Ukraine seeks EU, IFIs, private capital for energy resilience

The U.S. government has recently decided to terminate its support for Ukraine's energy grid restoration, a critical initiative managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This decision, reported by NBC News, comes at a time when Ukraine is grappling with significant challenges to its energy infrastructure due to ongoing Russian attacks. The termination of support was reportedly finalized before Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's scheduled visit to Washington, marking a significant shift in U.S. policy and raising concerns about the broader implications for Ukraine's energy resilience and its negotiations with Russia.

The Critical Role of U.S. Support

Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the country’s energy infrastructure has been one of the primary targets of military strikes. Russia has launched numerous attacks on Ukraine's power generation facilities, substations, and power lines, causing power outages across multiple regions. These attacks have led to significant material losses, with damage reaching billions of dollars. As part of its commitment to Ukraine, the U.S. government, through USAID, had been instrumental in funding restoration efforts aimed at rebuilding and reinforcing Ukraine’s energy grid.

USAID's support was crucial in helping Ukraine withstand the damage inflicted by Russian missile strikes. This aid was not just about restoring basic services but also about fortifying the energy grid to ensure that Ukraine could continue functioning amidst the war and keep the lights on this winter as temperatures drop. The U.S. contribution to Ukraine's energy sector, alongside international support, helped reduce the immediate vulnerabilities faced by Ukraine's civilians and industries.

The Abrupt Change in U.S. Policy

The decision to cut support for energy grid restoration is seen as a sharp reversal in U.S. policy, particularly as the Biden administration has previously shown strong backing for Ukraine in the aftermath of the invasion. This shift in policy was reportedly made by the U.S. State Department, which directed USAID to halt its involvement in the energy sector.

According to NBC News, USAID officials expressed concern about the timing of this decision. One official noted that terminating support for Ukraine’s energy grid restoration would severely undermine the U.S. government's ability to negotiate on issues like ceasefires and peace talks with Russia. The official argued that such a move would signal to Russia that the U.S. is backing away from its long-term investments in Ukraine, potentially weakening Ukraine's position in the ongoing war.

The abrupt end to this support is also seen as a blow to the morale of Ukraine’s government and people. Ukraine had been heavily reliant on the U.S. for resources to repair its critical infrastructure, and the decision to cut this support without warning has created uncertainty about the future of such recovery efforts.

Ukraine’s Response and Search for Alternatives

In response to the termination of U.S. support, Ukrainian officials have been seeking alternative sources of funding to continue the restoration of their energy grid. Deputy Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna reported that Ukraine has already reached preliminary agreements with other international partners to secure financial support for energy resilience, cyber defense, and recovery programs including new energy solutions for winter blackouts.

These efforts come at a time when Ukraine is working to rebuild its war-torn economy and safeguard critical sectors like energy and infrastructure. The termination of U.S. support for energy restoration projects underscores the growing pressure on Ukraine to diversify its sources of aid and not become overly dependent on any one nation. Ukrainian leaders are in ongoing talks with European governments, international financial institutions, and private investors to ensure that essential programs do not stall due to the lack of funding from the U.S., as energy cooperation grows and Ukraine helps Spain amid blackouts in solidarity.

Implications for Ukraine’s Energy Security

Ukraine's energy security remains a critical issue in the context of the ongoing conflict with Russia. The war has made the country’s energy infrastructure vulnerable to repeated attacks, and the restoration of this infrastructure is essential for ensuring that Ukraine can keep the lights on and recover in the long term. The U.S. has been one of the largest contributors to Ukraine's energy security efforts, and its withdrawal could force Ukraine to look for other partners who may not have the same level of financial or technological resources.

This development also raises questions about the future of U.S. involvement in Ukraine's recovery efforts more broadly. As the war continues and winter looms over the battlefront for frontline communities, the need for reliable and sustained support from international partners will only increase. If the U.S. significantly scales back its aid, Ukraine may face even greater challenges in maintaining its energy infrastructure and achieving long-term recovery.

Moving Forward

The termination of U.S. support for Ukraine’s energy grid restoration serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in international aid and geopolitics during wartime. As Ukraine faces the ongoing realities of the war, it must adapt to a shifting international landscape where traditional allies may not always be reliable sources of support. Ukraine’s leadership will need to be strategic in its search for alternative sources of aid, while also focusing on strengthening its energy grid, managing electricity reserves to stabilize supply, and reducing its vulnerabilities to Russian attacks.

While the end of U.S. support for Ukraine's energy restoration is a significant setback, it also underscores the urgent need for Ukraine to diversify its international partnerships. The future of Ukraine’s energy resilience may depend on how effectively it can navigate these changing dynamics while maintaining the support of the international community in the fight against Russian aggression.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Earth Hour BC highlights BC Hydro data on electricity use, energy savings, and participation in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island amid climate change and hydroelectric power dynamics.

Key Points

BC observance tracking BC Hydro electricity use and conservation during Earth Hour, amid hydroelectric power dominance.

✅ BC Hydro reports rising electricity use during Earth Hour 2018

✅ Savings fell from 2% in 2008 to near zero province-wide

✅ Hydroelectric grid yields low GHG emissions in BC

For the first time since it began tracking electricity use in the province during Earth Hour, BC Hydro said customers used more power during the 60-minute period when lights are expected to dim, mirroring all-time high electricity demand seen recently.

The World Wildlife Fund launched Earth Hour in Sydney, Australia in 2007. Residents and businesses there turned off lights and non-essential power as a symbol to mark the importance of combating climate change.

The event was adopted in B.C. the next year and, as part of that, BC Hydro began tracking the megawatt hours saved.

#google#

In 2008, residents and businesses achieved a two per cent savings in electricity use. But since then, BC Hydro says the savings have plummeted.

The event was adopted in B.C. the next year and, as part of that, BC Hydro began tracking the megawatt hours saved.

In 2008, residents and businesses achieved a two per cent savings in electricity use. But since then, BC Hydro says the savings have plummeted, as record-breaking demand in 2021 and beyond changed consumption patterns.

Lights on

For Earth Hour this year, which took place 8:30-9:30 p.m. on March 24, BC Hydro says electricity use in the Lower Mainland increased by 0.5 per cent, even as it activated a winter payment plan to help customers manage bills. On Vancouver Island it increased 0.6 per cent.

In the province's southern Interior and northern Interior, power use remained the same during the event.

On Friday, the utility released a report called: "lights out". Why Earth Hour is dimming in BC. which explores the decline of energy savings related to Earth Hour in the province.

The WWF says the way in which hydro companies track electricity savings during Earth Hour is not an accurate measure of participation, and tracking of emerging loads like crypto mining electricity use remains opaque, and noted that more countries than ever are turning off lights for the event.

For 2018, the WWF shifted the focus of Earth Hour to the loss of wildlife across the globe.

BC Hydro says in its report that the symbolism of Earth Hour is still important to British Columbians, but almost all power generation in B.C. is hydroelectric, though recent drought conditions have required operational adjustments, and only accounts for one per cent of greenhouse gas emissions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News