Solar taxi continues its journey

UK Net Zero Policy Delay shifts EV sales ban to 2035, eases boiler phase-outs, keeps ZEV mandate, backs North Sea oil and gas, accelerates onshore wind and grid upgrades while targeting 2050 emissions goals.

Key Points

Delay moves EV and heating targets to 2035, tweaks mandates, and shifts energy policy, keeping the 2050 net zero goal.

✅ EV sales ban shifts to 2035; ZEV mandate trajectory unchanged

✅ Heat pump grants rise to £7,500; boiler phase-out eased

✅ North Sea oil, onshore wind, grid and nuclear plans advance

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said he would delay targets for changing cars and domestic heating to maintain the consent of the British people in the switch to net zero as part of the global energy transition under way.

Sunak said Britain was still committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050, similar to Canada's race to net zero goals, and denied watering down its climate targets.

Here are some of the current emissions targets for Britain's top polluting sectors and how the announcement impacts them.

TRANSPORTATION
Transport accounts for more than a third (34%) of Britain's total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the most of any sector.

Sunak announced a delay to introducing a ban on new petrol and diesel cars and vans. It will now come into force in 2035 rather than in 2030.

There were more than 1.1 million electric cars in use on UK roads as of April - up by more than half from the previous year to account for roughly one in every 32 cars, according to the country's auto industry trade body.

The current 2030 target was introduced in November 2020 as a central part of then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson's plans for a "green revolution". As recently as Monday, transport minister Mark Harper restated government support for the policy.

Britain’s independent climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee, estimated a 2030 phase out of petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles could save up to 110 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions compared with a 2035 phase out.

ohnson's policy already allowed for the continued sale of hybrid cars and vans that can drive long stretches without emitting carbon until 2035.

The transition is governed by a zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate, a shift echoed by New Zealand's electricity transition debates, which means manufacturers must ensure an increasing proportion of the vehicles they sell in the UK are electric.

The current proposal is for 22% of a car manufacturer's sales to be electric in 2024, rising incrementally each year to 100% in 2035.

The government said on Wednesday that all sales of new cars from 2035 would still be zero emission.

Sunak said that proposals that would govern how many passengers people should have in a car, or proposals for new taxes to discourage flying, would be scrapped.

RESIDENTIAL
Residential emissions, the bulk of which come from heating, make up around 17% of the country's CO2 emissions.

The government has a target to reduce Britain's energy consumption from buildings and industry by 15% by 2030, and had set a target to phase out installing new and replacement gas boilers from 2035, as the UK moves towards heat pumps, amid an IEA report on Canada's power needs noting more electricity will be required.

Sunak said people would have more time to transition, and the government said that off-gas-grid homes could continue to install oil and liquefied petroleum gas boilers until 2035, rather than being phased out from 2026.

However, his announcements that the government would not force anyone to rip out an existing boiler and that people would only have to make the switch when replacing one from 2035 restated existing policy.

He also said there would be an exemption so some households would never have to switch, but the government would increase an upgrade scheme that gives people cash to replace their boilers by 50% to 7,500 pounds ($9,296.25).

Currently almost 80% of British homes are heated by gas boilers. In 2022, 72,000 heat pumps were installed. The government had set a target of 600,000 heat pump installations per year by 2028.

A study for Scottish Power and WWF UK in June found that 6 million homes would need to be better insulated by 2030 to meet the government's target to reduce household energy consumption, but current policies are only expected to deliver 1.1 million.

The study, conducted by Frontier Economics, added that 1.5 million new homes would still need heat pumps installed by 2030.

Sunak said that the government would subsidise people who wanted to make their homes energy efficient but never force a household to do it.

The government also said it was scrapping policies that would force landlords to upgrade the energy efficiency of their properties.

ENERGY
The energy sector itself is a big emitter of greenhouse gases, contributing around a quarter of Britain's emissions, though the UK carbon tax on coal has driven substantial cuts in coal-fired electricity in recent years.

In July, Britain committed to granting hundreds of licences for North Sea oil and gas extraction as part of efforts to become more energy independent.

Sunak said he would not ban new oil and gas in the North Sea, and that future carbon budgets for governments would have to be considered alongside the plans to meet them.

He said the government would shortly bring forward new plans for energy infrastructure to improve Britain's grid, including the UK energy plan, while speeding up planning.

Offshore wind power developers warned earlier this month that Britain's climate goals could be at risk, even as efforts like cleaning up Canada's electricity highlight the importance of power-sector decarbonization, after a subsidy auction for new renewable energy projects did not attract any investment in those planned off British coasts.

Britain is aiming to develop 50 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind capacity by 2030, up from around 14 GW now.

Sunak highlighted that Britain is lifting a ban on onshore wind, investing in carbon capture and building new nuclear power stations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

FPL Rate Increase Proposal 2026-2029 outlines $9B base-rate hikes as Florida grows, citing residential demand, grid infrastructure investments, energy mix diversification, and Florida PSC review impacting customer bills, reliability, and fuel price volatility mitigation.

Key Points

A $9B base-rate plan FPL filed with the Florida PSC to fund growth, grid upgrades, and energy diversification through 2029.

✅ Adds 275k since 2021; +335k customers projected by 2029.

✅ Monthly bills rise to about $157 by 2029, up ~22% total.

✅ Investments in poles, wires, transformers, substations, renewables.

Florida Power & Light (FPL), the state's largest utility provider, has submitted a proposal to the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) seeking a substantial increase in customer base rates over the next four years, amid ongoing scrutiny, including a recent hurricane surcharge controversy that heightened public attention.

Rationale Behind the Rate Increase

FPL's request is primarily influenced by Florida's robust population growth. Since 2021, the utility has added about 275,000 customers and projects an additional 335,000 by the end of 2029. This surge necessitates significant investments in transmission and distribution infrastructure, including poles, wires, transformers, and substations, to maintain reliable service. Moreover, FPL aims to diversify its energy mix to shield customers from fuel price volatility, even as the state declined federal solar incentives that could influence renewable adoption, ensuring a stable and sustainable power supply.

Impact on Customer Bills

If approved, the proposed rate increases would affect residential customers as follows:

• 2026: An estimated increase of $11.52 per month, raising the typical bill to $145.66.

• 2027: An additional $6.05 per month, bringing the bill to $151.71.

• 2028: A further increase of $3.64 per month, totaling $155.35.

• 2029: An extra $2.06 per month, resulting in a final bill of $157.41.

These adjustments represent a cumulative increase of approximately 22% over the four-year period, while in other regions some customers face sharper spikes, such as Pennsylvania's winter price increases this season.

Comparison with Previous Rate Hikes

This proposal follows a series of rate increases approved in recent years, as California electricity bills have soared and prompted calls for action in that state. For instance, Tampa Electric Co. (TECO) received approval for rate hikes totaling $287.9 million in 2025, with additional increases planned for 2026 and 2027. Consumer groups have expressed intentions to challenge these rate hikes, indicating a trend of growing scrutiny over utility rate adjustments.

Regulatory Review Process

The PSC is scheduled to review FPL's rate increase proposal in the coming months. A staff recommendation is expected by March 14, 2025, with a final decision anticipated at a commission conference on March 20, 2025. This process allows for public input and thorough evaluation of the proposed rate changes, while elsewhere some utilities anticipate stabilization, such as PG&E's 2025 outlook in California.

Customer and Consumer Advocacy Responses

The proposed rate hikes have elicited concerns from consumer advocacy groups. Organizations like Food & Water Watch have criticized the scale of the increase, labeling it as the largest rate hike request in U.S. history, amid mixed signals such as Gulf Power's one-time 40% bill decrease earlier this year. They argue that such substantial increases could place undue financial strain on households, especially those with fixed incomes.

Additionally, the Florida Public Service Commission has faced challenges in approving rate hikes for other utilities, such as TECO, and a recent Florida court decision on electricity monopolies that may influence the policy landscape, with consumer groups planning to appeal these decisions. This backdrop of heightened scrutiny suggests that FPL's proposal will undergo rigorous examination.

As Florida continues to experience rapid growth, balancing the need for infrastructure development and reliable energy services with the financial impact on consumers remains a critical challenge. The PSC's forthcoming decisions will play a pivotal role in shaping the state's energy landscape, influencing both the economy and the daily lives of Floridians.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nuclear Power Resilience During COVID-19 shows low-carbon electricity supporting renewables integration with grid flexibility, reliability, and inertia, sustaining decarbonization, stable baseload, and system security while prices fell and demand dropped across markets.

Key Points

It shows nuclear plants providing reliable, low-carbon power and supporting grid stability despite demand declines.

✅ Low prices challenge investment; lifetime extensions are cost-effective.

✅ Nuclear provides inertia, reliability, and dispatchable capacity.

✅ Market reforms should reward flexibility and grid services.

The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed the operation of power systems across the globe, including European responses that many argue accelerated the transition, and offered a glimpse of a future electricity mix dominated by low carbon sources.

The performance of nuclear power, in particular, demonstrates how it can support the transition to a resilient, clean energy system well beyond the COVID-19 recovery phase, and its role in net-zero pathways is increasingly highlighted by analysts today.

Restrictions on economic and social activity during the COVID-19 outbreak have led to an unprecedented and sustained decline in demand for electricity in many countries, in the order of 10% or more relative to 2019 levels over a period of a few months, thereby creating challenging conditions for both electricity generators and system operators (Fig. 1). The recent Sustainable Recovery Report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) projects a 5% reduction in global electricity usage for the entire year 2020, with a record 5.7% decline foreseen in the United States alone. The sustainable economic recovery will be discussed at today's IEA Clean Energy Transitions Summit, where Fatih Birol's call to keep options open will be prominent as IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi participates.

Electricity generation from fossil fuels has been hard hit, due to relatively high operating costs compared to nuclear power and renewables, as well as simple price-setting mechanisms on electricity markets. By contrast, low-carbon electricity prevailed during these extraordinary circumstances, with the contribution of renewable electricity rising in a number of countries as analyses see renewables eclipsing coal by 2025, due to an obligation on transmission system operators to schedule and dispatch renewable electricity ahead of other generators, as well as due to favourable weather conditions.

Nuclear power generation also proved to be resilient, reliable and adaptable. The nuclear industry rapidly implemented special measures to cope with the pandemic, avoiding the need to shut down plants due to the effects of COVID-19 on the workforce or supply chains. Nuclear generators also swiftly adapted to the changed market conditions. For example, EDF Energy was able to respond to the need of the UK grid operator by curtailing sporadically the generation of its Sizewell B reactor and maintain a cost-efficient and secure electricity service for consumers.

Despite the nuclear industry's performance during the pandemic, faced with significant decreases in demand, many generators have still needed to reduce their overall output appreciably, for example in France, Sweden, Ukraine, the UK and to a lesser extent Germany (Fig. 2), even as the nuclear decline debate continues in Europe. Declining demand in France up to the end of March already contributed to a 1% drop in first quarter revenues at EDF, with nuclear output more than 9% lower than in the year before. Similarly, Russia's Rosatom experienced a significant demand contraction in April and May, contributing to an 11% decline in revenues for the first five months of the year.

Overall, the competitiveness and resilience of low carbon technologies have resulted in higher market shares for nuclear, solar and wind power in many countries since the start of lockdowns (Fig. 3), and low-emissions sources to meet demand growth over the next three years. The share of nuclear generation in South Korea rose by almost 9 percentage points during the pandemic, while in the UK, nuclear played a big part in almost eliminating coal generation for a period of two months. For the whole of 2020, the US Energy Information Administration's Short-Term Energy Outlook sees the share of nuclear generation increasing by more than one percentage point compared to 2019. In China, power production decreased during January-February 2020 by more than 8% year on year: coal power decreased by nearly 9%, hydropower by nearly 12%. Nuclear has proved more resilient with a 2% reduction only. The benefits of these higher shares of clean energy in terms of reduced emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants have been on full display worldwide over the past months.

Challenges for the future

Despite the demonstrated performance of a cleaner energy system through the crisis - including the capacity of existing nuclear power plants to deliver a competitive, reliable, and low carbon electricity service when needed - both short- and long-term challenges remain.

In the shorter term, the collapse in electricity demand has accelerated recent falls in electricity prices, particularly in Europe (Fig. 4), from already economically unsustainable levels. According to Standard and Poor's Midyear Update, the large price drops in Europe result from not only COVID-19 lockdown measures but also collapsing demand due to an unusually warm winter, increased supply from renewables in a context of lower gas prices and CO2 allowances . Such low prices further exacerbate the challenging environment faced by many electricity generators, including nuclear plants. These may impede the required investments in the clean energy transition, with longer term consequences on the achievement of climate goals.

For nuclear power, maintaining and extending the operation of existing plants is essential to support and accelerate the transition to low carbon energy systems. With a supportive investment environment, a 10-20 year lifetime extension can be realized at an average cost of US $30-40/MW*h, making it among the most cost-effective low-carbon options, while also maintaining dispatchable capacity and lowering the overall cost of the clean energy transition. The IEA Sustainable Recovery report indicates that without such extensions 40% of the nuclear fleet in developed economies may be retired within a decade, adding around US$ 80 billion per year to electricity bills. The IEA note the potential for nuclear plant maintenance and extension programmes to support recovery measures by generating significant economic activity and employment.

The need for flexibility

New nuclear power projects can provide similar economic and environmental benefits and applications beyond electricity, but will be all the more challenging to finance without strong policy support and more substantive power market reforms, including improved frameworks for remunerating reliability, flexibility and other services. The need for flexibility in electricity generation and system operation - a trend accelerated by the crisis - will increasingly characterize future energy systems over the medium to longer term.

Looking further ahead, while generators and system operators successfully responded to the crisis, the observed decline in fossil fuel generation draws attention to additional grid stability challenges likely to emerge further into the energy transition. Heavy rotating steam and gas turbines provide mechanical inertia to an electricity system, thereby maintaining its balance. Replacing these capacities with variable renewables may result in greater instability, poorer power quality and increased incidence of blackouts. Large nuclear power plants along with other technologies can fill this role, alleviating the risk of supply disruptions in fully decarbonized electricity systems.

The challenges created by COVID-19 have also brought into focus the need to ensure resilience is built-in to future energy systems to cope with a broader range of external shocks, including more variable and extreme weather patterns expected from climate change.

The performance of nuclear power during the crisis provides a timely reminder of its ongoing contribution and future potential in creating a more sustainable, reliable, low carbon energy system.

Data sources for electricity demand, generation and prices: European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (Europe), Ukrenergo National Power Company (Ukraine), Power System Operation Corporation (India), Korea Power Exchange (South Korea), Operador Nacional do Sistema Eletrico (Brazil), Independent Electricity System Operator (Ontario, Canada), EIA (USA). Data cover 1 January to May/June.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

AEMC Storage Charging Rules spark industry backlash as Tesla, Snowy Hydro, and investors warn transmission charges on batteries and pumped hydro could deter grid-scale storage, distort the National Electricity Market, and slow decarbonisation.

Key Points

AEMC Storage Charging Rules are proposals to bill grid storage for network use, shaping costs and investment.

✅ Charges apply when batteries draw power; double-charging concerns.

✅ Tesla and Snowy Hydro warn of reduced viability and delays.

✅ AEMO recommends exemptions; investors seek certainty.

Tesla, Snowy Hydro and other big suppliers of storage capacity on Australia’s main electricity grid warn proposed rule changes amount to a tax on their operations that will deter investors and slow the decarbonisation of the industry.

The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) will release its final decision this Thursday on new rules for integrating batteries, pumped hydro and other forms of storage.

The AEMC’s draft decision, released in July, angered many firms because it proposed charging storage providers for drawing power, ignoring a recommendation by the Australian Electricity Market Operator (AEMO) that they be exempt.

Battery maker Tesla, which has supplied some of the largest storage to the National Electricity Market, said in a submission that the charges would “kill the commercial viability of all grid storage projects, causing inefficient investment in alternative network”, with consumers paying higher costs.

Snowy Hydro, which is building the giant Snowy 2 pumped storage project and already operates a smaller one, said in its submission the proposed changes if implemented would jeopardise investment.

“This is a major policy change, amounting to a tax on infrastructure critical to achieving a renewable future,” Snowy Hydro said.

AEMO itself argued it was important storage providers were not “disincentivised from connecting to the transmission network, as they generally provide a net benefit to the power system by charging at periods of low demand”.

Australia’s electricity grid faces economic and engineering challenges, similar to Ontario's storage push as it adjusts to the arrival of lower cost and also lower carbon alternatives to fossil fuels.

While rule changes are necessary to account for operators that can both draw from and supply power, how they are implemented can have long-lasting effects on the technologies that get encouraged or repelled, including control of EV charging issues, independent experts say.

“It doesn’t have to be this way,” said Bruce Mountain, director of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre. “In Britain, where the UK grid transformation is underway, the regulator dealing with the same issues has said that storage devices don’t pay the system charges when they withdraw electricity from the grid,” he said.

The prospect that storage operators will have to pay transmission charges could “drastically” affect their profitability since their business models rely on the difference between the price their pay for power and how much they can sell it for. Gas generators and network monopolies would benefit from the change, Mountain said.

Sign up to receive an email with the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning

An AEMC spokesperson said the commission had consulted widely, including from those who objected to the payment for transmission access.

“The market is moving towards a future that will be increasingly reliant on energy storage to firm up the growing volume of renewable energy and deliver on the increasing need for critical system security services, with examples such as EVs supporting grid stability in California as the ageing fleet of thermal generators retire,” the spokesperson said, declining to elaborate on the final ruling before it is published.

“The regulatory framework needs to facilitate this transition as the energy sector continues to decarbonise,” the official said.

AusNet, which operates the Victorian energy transmission grid, said that while “technological neutrality is paramount for battery and hybrid unit connections to both the distribution and transmission networks,” it did not back charging storage access to networks in all cases.

“[Ausnet] supports a clear exemptions framework for energy storage providers,” a spokesperson said. “We recommend that batteries and other hybrid facilities should have transmission use of system charges waived if they provide a net benefit to network customers.”

We are not aware of anyone that supports the charging storage access to networks in all circumstances.

“Batteries and hybrid facilities that consume energy from the network should be provided no preferential treatment relative to other customers and generators.”

Jonathan Upson, a principal at Strategic Renewable Consulting, though, said the AEMC wants electricity flowing through batteries to be taxed twice to pay network charges – once when the electricity charges the battery and then again when the same electricity is sent out by the battery an hour or two later but this time with customers paying.

“The AEMC’s draft decision has the identical rationale for eliminating franking credits on all dividends, resulting in double taxing of company profits,” he said.

Christiaan Zuur, director of energy transformation at the Clean Energy Council, said that while much of AEMC’s draft proposal was constructive, “those benefits are either nullified or maybe even outweighed” by uncertainty over charges.

“Risk perception” will be important since potential newcomers won’t be sure of what charges they will pay to connect to the grid and existing operators could have their connection agreements reopened, Zuur said.

“Investors focus on the potential risk. It does factor through to the integral costs for projects,” he said.

The outcome of new charges may prompt more people to put batteries on their premises and draw power from their own solar panels, Mountain said, with rising EV adoption introducing new grid challenges, cutting their reliance on a centralised network.

“Ironically, it encourages customers to depend less and less on the grid,” he said. “It’s almost like the capture of the dominant interests playing out over time at their own expense.”

Separately, the latest edition of the Clean Energy Council Confidence Index shows leadership by state governments is helping to shore up investor appetite for investing in renewable energy amid 2021 electricity lessons even with higher 2030 emissions reduction goals from the federal government.

Overall, investor confidence increased by a point in the last six months – from 6.3 to 7.3 out of 10 – following strong commitments and policy development from state governments, particularly on the east coast, the council said.

“The results of this latest survey illustrate the economic value in policy that lowers the emissions footprint of our electricity generation, supporting regional centres and creating jobs. Investors recognise the opportunities created by limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees,” said council chief executive Kane Thornton.

Among the states, NSW, Victoria and Queensland led in terms of positive investor sentiment.

Correction: this article was amended on 30 November. An earlier version stated Ausnet supported charging storage for network access. A spokesperson said it backed a waiver on charges if certain conditions are met.        

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Miami Valley Windstorm Power Outages disrupted thousands as 60 mph gusts toppled trees, downed power lines, and damaged buildings. Utility crews and emergency services managed debris, while NWS alerts warned of extended restoration.

Key Points

Region-wide power losses from severe winds in the Miami Valley, causing damage, debris, and restoration.

✅ 60 mph gusts downed trees, snapped lines, blocked roads

✅ Crews from DP&L worked extended shifts to restore service

✅ NWS issued wind advisories; schools, businesses closed

On a recent day, powerful winds tore through the Miami Valley, causing significant disruption across the region. The storm, which was accompanied by gusts reaching dangerous speeds, led to windstorm power outages affecting thousands of homes and businesses. As trees fell and power lines were snapped, many residents found themselves without electricity for hours, and in some cases, even days.

The high winds, which were part of a larger weather system moving through the area, left a trail of destruction in their wake. In addition to power outages, there were reports of storm damage to buildings, vehicles, and other structures. The force of the wind uprooted trees, some of which fell on homes and vehicles, causing significant property damage. While the storm did not result in any fatalities, the destruction was widespread, with many communities experiencing debris-filled streets and blocked roads.

Utility companies in the Miami Valley, including Dayton Power & Light, quickly mobilized crews, similar to FPL's storm response in major events, to begin restoring power to the affected areas. However, the high winds presented a challenge for repair crews, as downed power lines and damaged equipment made restoration efforts more difficult. Many customers were left waiting for hours or even days for their power to be restored, and some neighborhoods were still experiencing outages several days after the storm had passed.

In response to the severe weather, local authorities issued warnings to residents, urging them to stay indoors and avoid unnecessary travel. Wind gusts of up to 60 miles per hour were reported, making driving hazardous, particularly on bridges and overpasses, similar to Quebec windstorm outages elsewhere. The National Weather Service also warned of the potential for further storm activity, advising people to remain vigilant as the system moved eastward.

The impact of the storm was felt not only in terms of power outages but also in the strain it placed on emergency services. With trees blocking roads and debris scattered across the area, first responders were required to work quickly and efficiently to clear paths and assist those in need. Many residents were left without heat, refrigeration, and in some cases, access to medical equipment that relied on electricity.

Local schools and businesses were also affected by the storm. Many schools had to cancel classes, either due to power outages or because roads were impassable. Businesses, particularly those in the retail and service sectors, faced disruptions in their operations as they struggled to stay open without power amid extended outages that lingered, or to address damage caused by fallen trees and debris.

In the aftermath of the storm, Miami Valley residents are working to clean up and assess the damage. Many homeowners are left dealing with the aftermath of tree removal, property repairs, and other challenges. Meanwhile, local governments are focusing on restoring infrastructure, as seen after Toronto's spring storm outages in recent years, and ensuring that the power grid is secured to prevent further outages.

While the winds have died down and conditions have improved, the storm’s impact will be felt for weeks to come, reflecting Florida's weeks-long restorations after severe storms. The region will continue to recover from the damage, but the event serves as a reminder of the power of nature and the resilience of communities in the face of adversity. For residents affected by the power outages, recovery will require patience as utility crews and local authorities work tirelessly to restore normalcy.

Looking ahead, experts are urging residents to prepare for the next storm season by ensuring that they have emergency kits, backup generators, and contingency plans in place. As climate change contributes to more extreme weather events, it is likely that storms of this magnitude will become more frequent. By taking steps to prepare in advance, communities across the Miami Valley can better handle whatever challenges come next.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News