U.S. power companies reach transmission usage agreement

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

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Canada Oil Recession Outlook analyzes the Russia-Saudi price war, OPEC discord, COVID-19 demand shock, WTI and WCS collapse, Alberta oilsands exposure, U.S. shale stress, and GDP risks from blockades and fiscal responses.

Key Points

An outlook on how the oil price war and COVID-19 demand shock could tip Canada into recession and strain producers.

✅ WTI and WCS prices plunge on OPEC-Russia discord

✅ Alberta oilsands face break-even pressure near 30 USD WTI

✅ RBC flags global recession; GDP hit from blockades, virus

A war between Russia and Saudi Arabia for market share for oil may have been triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic in China, but the oil price crash contagion that it will spread could have impacts that last longer than the virus.

The prospects for Canada are not good.

Plunging oil prices, reduced economic activity from virus containment, and the fallout from weeks of railway blockades over the Coastal GasLink pipeline all add up to “a one-two-three punch that I think is almost inevitably going to put Canada in a position where its growth has to be negative,” said Dan McTeague, a former Liberal MP and current president of Canadians for Affordable Energy. The situation “certainly has the makings” of a recession, said Ken Peacock, chief economist for the Business Council of British Columbia.

“At a minimum, it’s going to be very disruptive and we’re going to have maybe one negative quarter,” Peacock said. “Whether there’s a second one, where it gets labeled a recession, is a different question. But it’s going to generate some turmoil and challenges over the next two quarters – there’s no doubt about that.”

RBC Economics on March 13 announced it now predicts a global recession and cut its growth projections for Canada's economy in 2020 by half a per cent.

Oil price futures plunged 30% last week, dragging stock markets and currencies, including the Canadian dollar, down with them, even as a deep freeze strained U.S. energy systems. That drop came on top of a 17% decline in February, due to falling demand for oil due to the virus.

The latest price plunge – the worst since the 1991 Gulf War – was the result of Russia and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), led by Saudi Arabia, failing to agree on oil production cuts.

The COVID-19 outbreak in China – the world’s second-largest oil consumer – had resulted in a dramatic drop in oil demand in that country, and a sudden glut of oil, with the U.S. energy crisis affecting electricity, gas and EV markets.

OPEC has historically been able to moderate global oil prices by controlling output. But when Russia refused to co-operate with OPEC and agree to production cuts, Saudi Arabia’s state-owned company, Aramco, announced it plans to boost its oil output from 9.7 million barrels per day (bpd) to 12.3 million bpd in April.

In response to that announcement, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) prices dropped 18% to below US$34 per barrel while the Canadian Crude Index fell 24% to US$21. Western Canadian Select dropped 39% to US$15.73.

The effect on Alberta oilsands producers was severe and immediate. Cenovus Energy Inc. (TSX:CVE) saw roughly $2 billion in market cap erased on March 9, when its stock dropped by 52%, which came on top of a 12% drop March 6.

The company responded the very next day by announcing it would cut spending by 32% in 2020, suspend its oil-by-rail program and defer expansion projects.

MEG Energy Corp. (TSX:MEG), which suffered a 56% share price drop on March 9, also announced a 20% reduction in its 2020 capital spending plan.

Peter Tertzakian, chief economist for ARC Energy Research Institute, wrote last week that Russia’s plan is to try to hurt U.S. shale oil producers, who have more than doubled U.S. oil production over the past decade.

Anas Alhajji, a global oil analyst, expects that plan could work. Even before the oil price shock, he had predicted the great shale boom in the U.S. was coming to an end.

“Shale production will decline, and the myth of ‘explosive growth’ will end,” he told Business in Vancouver. “The impact is global and Canadian producers might suffer even more if the oil that Saudi Arabia sends to the U.S. is medium and heavy. This might last longer than what people think.”

The question for Alberta is how Canadian producers can continue to operate through a period of cheap oil. Alberta producers do not compete on the global market. They serve a niche market of U.S. heavy oil refiners, and Biden-era policy is seen as potentially more favourable for Canada’s energy sector than alternatives.

“On the positive side, the industry is battle-hardened,” Tertzakian wrote. “Over the past five years, innovative companies have already learned to endure some of the lowest prices in the world.”

But he added that they need WTI prices of US$30 per barrel just to break even.

“But that’s an average break-even threshold for an industry with a wide variation in costs. That means at that level about half the companies can’t pay their bills and half are treading water.”

Just prior to the oil price plunge, the International Energy Agency (IEA) updated its 2020 forecast for global oil consumption from an 825,000 bpd increase in oil consumption to a 90,000 bpd decrease, due to the COVID-19 virus and consequent economic contraction and reduction in travel.

The IEA predicts global oil demand won’t return to “normal” until the second half of 2020. But even if demand does return to pre-virus levels, that doesn’t mean oil prices will – not if Saudi Arabia can sustain increased oil production at low prices, and evolving clean grid priorities could influence the trajectory too.

The oil plunge was greeted in Alberta with alarm. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney warned Alberta is in “uncharted territory” as consumers are urged to lock in rates and said his government might have to review its balanced budget and resort to emergency deficit spending.

While British Columbians – who pay some of the highest gasoline prices in North America – will enjoy lower gasoline prices at a time when prices are usually starting a seasonal spike, B.C.’s economy could feel knock-on effects from a recession in Alberta.

“We sell a lot of inputs, do a lot of trade with Alberta, so it’s important for B.C., Alberta’s economic health,” Peacock said, “and recent tensions over electricity purchase talks underscore that.”

Last week, the Trudeau government announced $1 billion in emergency funding to cope with the virus and waived a one-week waiting period for unemployment insurance.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Tesla NYC Supercharger Expansion adds rapid EV charging across Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens, strengthening infrastructure, easing range anxiety, and advancing New York City sustainability goals with fast chargers at strategic commercial and residential-adjacent locations.

Key Points

Tesla's plan to add rapid EV charging across NYC, boosting access, easing range anxiety, and advancing climate targets.

✅ New Superchargers in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens

✅ Faster charging to cut downtime and range anxiety

✅ Partnerships with businesses to expand public access

In a significant move to enhance the EV charging infrastructure across the city, Tesla has announced plans to expand its network of charging stations throughout New York City. This investment is set to bolster the availability of charging options, making it more convenient for EV owners while encouraging more residents to consider electric vehicles as a viable alternative to traditional gasoline-powered cars.

The Growing Need for Charging Infrastructure

As the demand for electric vehicles continues to rise amid the American EV boom across the country, the need for a robust charging infrastructure has become increasingly critical. With New York City setting ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the expansion of EVs is seen as a crucial component of its sustainability strategy. Currently, the city aims to have 50% of all vehicles electrified by 2030, a target that necessitates a significant increase in charging stations.

Tesla’s initiative to install more charging points in NYC aligns perfectly with these goals and reflects how charging networks are competing nationwide to expand access, drawing more drivers to consider electric vehicles. By enhancing the charging network, Tesla is not only catering to its existing customers but also appealing to potential EV buyers who may have previously hesitated due to range anxiety or limited charging options.

A Look at the Expansion Plans

The details of Tesla's expansion include adding several new Supercharger stations across key locations in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens, as US automakers move to build 30,000 public chargers nationwide to boost coverage. These stations will be strategically placed to ensure maximum accessibility, especially in densely populated areas where residents may not have easy access to home charging.

Tesla’s Superchargers are known for their rapid charging capabilities, allowing EV drivers to recharge their vehicles in a fraction of the time it would take at a standard charging station. This efficiency will be particularly beneficial in a bustling urban environment like NYC, where convenience and time are of the essence.

Moreover, Tesla is also exploring partnerships with local businesses and property owners to install charging stations at commercial locations. This initiative would not only create more charging opportunities but also encourage businesses to attract EV-driving customers, further promoting electric vehicle adoption.

Impact on EV Adoption in NYC

The expansion of Tesla's charging network is expected to have a positive ripple effect on the adoption of electric vehicles in New York City. With more charging stations available, potential buyers will feel more confident in making the switch to electric. The convenience of accessible charging can significantly reduce range anxiety, a common concern among potential EV buyers.

Additionally, this expansion will likely encourage other automakers to invest in charging infrastructure, as utilities pursue a bullish course on charging to support deployment, leading to a more interconnected network of charging options across the city. As more drivers embrace electric vehicles, the demand for charging will continue to grow, a trend that will test state power grids in the coming years, further solidifying the need for a comprehensive and reliable infrastructure.

Supporting Sustainable Initiatives

Tesla's investment in NYC's charging infrastructure is also part of a broader commitment to sustainability. As cities grapple with the challenges of climate change and air pollution, transitioning to electric vehicles is seen as a vital strategy for reducing emissions. Electric vehicles produce zero tailpipe emissions, which contributes to cleaner air and a healthier urban environment.

Moreover, with the increasing push towards renewable energy sources, the integration of electric vehicles into the city’s transportation system can help reduce reliance on fossil fuels, with energy storage and mobile charging adding flexibility to support the grid. As more charging stations utilize renewable energy, the overall carbon footprint of electric vehicles will continue to decrease, aligning with New York City's climate goals.

Looking Ahead

As Tesla moves forward with its expansion plans in New York City, the implications for both the automotive industry and urban sustainability are profound. By enhancing the charging infrastructure, Tesla is not only facilitating the growth of electric vehicles but also playing a crucial role in the city’s efforts to combat climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

DOE CCUS Funding advances carbon capture, utilization, and storage with FEED studies, regional deployment, and CarbonSAFE site characterization, leveraging 45Q tax credits to scale commercial CO2 reduction across fossil energy sectors.

Key Points

DOE CCUS Funding are federal FOAs for commercial carbon capture, storage, and utilization via FEED and CarbonSAFE.

✅ $110M across FEED, Regional, and CarbonSAFE FOAs

✅ Supports Class VI permits, NEPA, and site characterization

✅ Enables 45Q credits and enhanced oil recovery utilization

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Fossil Energy (FE) has announced approximately $110 million in federal funding for cost-shared research and development (R&D) projects under three funding opportunity announcements (FOAs), alongside broader carbon-free electricity investments across the power sector.

Approximately $75M is for awards selected under two FOAs announced earlier this fiscal year; $35M is for a new FOA.

These FOAs further the Administration’s commitment to strengthening coal while protecting the environment. Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) is increasingly becoming widely accepted as a viable option for fossil-based energy sources—such as coal- or gas-fired power plants under new EPA power plant rules and other industrial sources—to lower their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

DOE’s program has successfully deployed various large-scale CCUS pilot and demonstration projects, and it is imperative to build upon these learnings to test, mature, and prove CCUS technologies at the commercial scale. A recent study by Science of the Total Environment found that DOE is the most productive organization in the world in the carbon capture and storage field.

“This Administration is committed to providing cost-effective technologies to advance CCUS around the world,” said Secretary Perry. “CCUS technologies are vital to ensuring the United States can continue to safely use our vast fossil energy resources, and we are proud to be a global leader in this field.”

“CCUS technologies have transformative potential,” said Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Steven Winberg. “Not only will these technologies allow us to utilize our fossil fuel resources in an environmentally friendly manner, but the captured CO2 can also be utilized in enhanced oil recovery and emerging CO2-to-electricity concepts, which would help us maximize our energy production.”

Under the first FOA award, Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) Studies for Carbon Capture Systems on Coal and Natural Gas Power Plants, DOE has selected nine projects to receive $55.4 million in federal funding for cost-shared R&D. The selected projects will support FEED studies for commercial-scale carbon capture systems. Find project descriptions HERE. 

Under the second FOA award, Regional Initiative to Accelerate CCUS Deployment, DOE selected four projects to receive up to $20 million in federal funding for cost-shared R&D. The projects also advance existing research and development by addressing key technical challenges; facilitating data collection, sharing, and analysis; evaluating regional infrastructure, including CO2 storage hubs and pipelines; and promoting regional technology transfer. Additionally, this new regional initiative includes newly proposed regions or advanced efforts undertaken by the previous Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSP) Initiative. Find project descriptions HERE. 

Elsewhere in North America, provincial efforts such as Quebec's and industry partners like Cascades are investing in energy efficiency projects to complement emissions-reduction goals.

Under the new FOA, Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE): Site Characterization and CO2 Capture Assessment, DOE is announcing up to $35 million in federal funding for cost-shared R&D projects that will accelerate wide-scale deployment of CCUS through assessing and verifying safe and cost-effective anthropogenic CO2 commercial-scale storage sites, and carbon capture and/or purification technologies. These types of projects have the potential to take advantage of the 45Q tax credit, bolstered by historic U.S. climate legislation, which provides a tax credit for each ton of CO2 sequestered or utilized. The credit was recently increased to $35/metric ton for enhanced oil recovery and $50/metric ton for geologic storage.

Projects selected under this new FOA shall perform the following key activities: complete a detailed site characterization of a commercial-scale CO2 storage site (50 million metric tons of captured CO2 within a 30 year period); apply and obtain an underground injection control class VI permit to construct an injection well; complete a CO2capture assessment; and perform all work required to obtain a National Environmental Policy Act determination for the site.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

German Energy Price Brakes harness price signals in a market-based policy, cutting gas consumption, preserving industrial output, and supporting CO2 reduction, showcasing Germany's resilience and adaptation while protecting households and businesses across Europe.

Key Points

Fixed-amount subsidies preserving price signals to curb gas use, shield consumers, and sustain industrial output.

✅ Maintains incentives via market-based price signals

✅ Cuts gas consumption without distorting EU markets

✅ Protects households and industry while curbing CO2

German industry and society are once again proving much more resilient and adaptable than certain people feared. Horror scenarios of a dangerous energy rationing or a massive slump in our economy have often been bandied about. But we are nowhere near that. With a challenging year just behind us, this is good news — not only for Germany, but also for Europe, where France-Germany energy cooperation has strengthened solidarity.

Companies and households reacted swiftly to the sharp increases in energy prices, in line with momentum in the global energy transition seen across markets. They installed more efficient heating or production facilities, switched to alternatives and imported intermediate products. The results are encouraging: German households and businesses have reduced gas consumption significantly, despite recent cold weather. From the start of the war in Ukraine to mid-December industrial gas consumption in Germany was (temperature-adjusted) around 20 per cent lower than the average level for the preceding three years. Even if some firms have cut back production, especially in energy-intensive sectors, industrial output as a whole has only fallen by about 1 per cent since the start of 2022. Added to this, in a survey released by the Ifo institute in November, over a third of German companies saw the potential to reduce gas consumption further without endangering output.

Instead of imposing excessive laws and regulations, we have relied on price signals and the prudence of market participants to create the right incentives and reduce gas consumption, as falling costs like record-low solar power prices continue to reinforce those signals across sectors.

We will follow this approach in coming months, when energy savings will remain important, even as the EU electricity outlook anticipates sharply higher demand by 2050. Our latest relief measures will not distort price signals. To this end, the Bundestag approved gas and electricity price brakes in its final session in 2022. They are designed to function without any intervention in markets or prices. This system will pay out a fixed amount relative to previous years’ consumption and the current difference to a reference price — regardless of current consumption.

Energy price brakes are the main component of Germany’s “protective shield”, which makes up to €200bn available for measures in 2022 to 2024. Seen in relation to the German economy’s size, its past heavy reliance on Russian energy imports and the fact that the measures will expire in 2024, these are balanced and expedient mechanisms. In contrast to instruments used in other countries, our new arrangements will not affect the price formation process driven by supply and demand, or on incentives to save gas. Companies and households will continue to save the full market price when they reduce consumption by a unit of gas or electricity. In this way, the price brakes also avoid the creation of additional demand for gas at the expense of consumers in other European countries, even as Europe’s Big Oil turning electric signals broader structural shifts in energy markets. No one need fear that competition will be distorted or that gas will be bought up. Indeed, a recent IMF working paper on cushioning the impact of high energy prices on households explicitly praises the German energy price brakes.

Current developments confirm the effectiveness of a market-based approach — and show that we should also rely on price signals when it comes to reducing CO₂ emissions, as suggested by IEA CO2 trends in recent years. Last year, households and companies had only a few weeks to adapt, yet we have already seen a strong response. The effect of CO₂ prices can be even stronger, as adaptation is possible over a much longer time and they additionally affect expectations and long-term decisions. Regulatory interventions and subsidy schemes, even if well targeted, cannot compete with market co-ordination and incentives that support individual decision-making and promote innovation.

Europe and Germany can weather this crisis without a collapse in industrial production. We also have an opportunity to deal efficiently with the move to climate neutrality, aligned with Germany’s hydrogen strategy for imported low-carbon fuels. In both cases, we should have confidence in price signals as well as in the power of people and business to innovate and adapt.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News