El Paso customers to get refund

TTC Winter E-Bike and E-Scooter Ban addresses lithium-ion battery safety, mitigating fire risk on Toronto public transit during cold weather across buses, subways, and streetcars, while balancing micro-mobility access, infrastructure gaps, and evolving regulations.

Key Points

A seasonal TTC policy limiting lithium-ion e-bikes and scooters on transit in winter to cut battery fire risk.

✅ Targets lithium-ion fire hazards in confined transit spaces

✅ Applies Nov-Mar across buses, subways, and streetcars

✅ Sparks debate on equity, accessibility, and policy alternatives

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) Board recently voted to implement a ban on lithium-ion-powered electric bikes (e-bikes) and electric scooters during the winter months, a decision that reflects growing safety concerns. This new policy has generated significant debate within the city, particularly regarding the role of these transportation modes in the lives of Torontonians, and the potential risks posed by the technology during cold weather.

A Growing Safety Concern

The move to ban lithium-ion-powered e-bikes and scooters from TTC services during the winter months stems from increasing safety concerns related to battery fires. Lithium-ion batteries, commonly used in e-bikes and scooters, are known to pose a fire risk, especially in colder temperatures, and as systems like Metro Vancouver's battery-electric buses expand, robust safety practices are paramount. In recent years, Toronto has experienced several high-profile incidents involving fires caused by these batteries. In some cases, these fires have occurred on TTC property, including on buses and subway cars, raising alarm among transit officials.

The TTC Board's decision was largely driven by the fear that the cold temperatures during winter months could make lithium-ion batteries more prone to malfunction, leading to potential fires. These batteries are particularly vulnerable to damage when exposed to low temperatures, which can cause them to overheat or fail during charging or use. Since public transit systems are densely populated and rely on close quarters, the risk of a battery fire in a confined space such as a bus or subway is considered too high.

The New Ban

The new rule, which is expected to take effect in the coming months, will prohibit e-bikes and scooters powered by lithium-ion batteries from being brought onto TTC vehicles, including buses, streetcars, and subway trains, even as the agency rolls out battery electric buses across its fleet, during the winter months. While the TTC had previously allowed passengers to bring these devices on board, it had issued warnings regarding their safety. The policy change reflects a more cautious approach to mitigating risk in light of growing concerns.

The winter months, typically from November to March, are when these batteries are at their most vulnerable. In addition to environmental factors, the challenges posed by winter weather—such as snow, ice, and the damp conditions—can exacerbate the potential for damage to these devices. The TTC Board hopes the new ban will prevent further incidents and keep transit riders safe.

Pushback and Debate

Not everyone agrees with the TTC Board's decision. Some residents and advocacy groups have expressed concern that this ban unfairly targets individuals who rely on e-bikes and scooters as an affordable and sustainable mode of transportation, while international examples like Paris's e-scooter vote illustrate how contentious rental devices can be elsewhere, adding fuel to the debate. E-bikes, in particular, have become a popular choice among commuters who want an eco-friendly alternative to driving, especially in a city like Toronto, where traffic congestion can be severe.

Advocates argue that instead of an outright ban, the TTC should invest in safer infrastructure, such as designated storage areas for e-bikes and scooters, or offer guidelines on how to safely store and transport these devices during winter, and, in assessing climate impacts, consider Canada's electricity mix alongside local safety measures. They also point out that other forms of electric transportation, such as electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters, are not subject to the same restrictions, raising questions about the fairness of the new policy.

In response to these concerns, the TTC has assured the public that it remains committed to finding alternative solutions that balance safety with accessibility. Transit officials have stated that they will continue to monitor the situation and consider adjustments to the policy if necessary.

Broader Implications for Transportation in Toronto

The TTC’s decision to ban lithium-ion-powered e-bikes and scooters is part of a broader conversation about the future of transportation in urban centers like Toronto. The rise of electric micro-mobility devices has been seen as a step toward reducing carbon emissions and addressing the city’s growing congestion issues, aligning with Canada's EV goals that push for widespread adoption. However, as more people turn to e-bikes and scooters for daily commuting, concerns about safety and infrastructure have become more pronounced.

The city of Toronto has yet to roll out comprehensive regulations for electric scooters and bikes, and this issue is further complicated by the ongoing push for sustainable urban mobility and pilots like driverless electric shuttles that test new models. While transit authorities grapple with safety risks, the public is increasingly looking for ways to integrate these devices into a broader, more holistic transportation system that prioritizes both convenience and safety.

The TTC’s decision to ban lithium-ion-powered e-bikes and scooters during the winter months is a necessary step to address growing safety concerns in Toronto's public transit system. Although the decision has been met with some resistance, it highlights the ongoing challenges in managing the growing use of electric transportation in urban environments, where initiatives like TTC's electric bus fleet offer lessons on scaling safely. With winter weather exacerbating the risks associated with lithium-ion batteries, the policy seeks to reduce the chances of fires and ensure the safety of all transit users. As the city moves forward, it will need to find ways to balance innovation with public safety to create a more sustainable and safe urban transportation network.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Energy equity in utility regulation prioritizes fair rates, clean energy access, and DERs, addressing fixed charges and energy burdens on low-income households through stakeholder engagement and public utility commission reforms.

Key Points

Fairly allocates clean energy benefits and rate burdens, ensuring access and protections for low-income households.

✅ Reduces fixed charges that burden low-income households

✅ Funds community participation in utility proceedings

✅ Prioritizes DERs, energy efficiency, and solar in impacted areas

By Kiran Julin

Pouring over the line items on your monthly electricity bill may not sound like an enticing way to spend an afternoon, but the way electricity bills are structured has a significant impact on equitable energy access and distribution. For example, fixed fees can have a disproportionate impact on low-income households. And combined with other factors, low-income households and households of color are far more likely to report losing home heating service, with evidence from pandemic power shut-offs highlighting these disparities, according to recent federal data.

Advancing Equity in Utility Regulation, a new report published by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), makes a unifying case that utilities, regulators, and stakeholders need to prioritize energy equity in the deployment of clean energy technologies and resources, aligning with a people-and-planet electricity future envisioned by advocacy groups. Equity in this context is the fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of energy production and consumption. The report outlines systemic changes needed to advance equity in electric utility regulation by providing perspectives from four organizations — Portland General Electric, a utility company; the National Consumer Law Center, a consumer advocacy organization; and the Partnership for Southern Equity and the Center for Biological Diversity, social justice and environmental organizations.
 
“While government and ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs have made strides towards equity by enabling low-income households to access energy-efficiency measures, that has not yet extended in a major way to other clean-energy technologies,” said Lisa Schwartz, a manager and strategic advisor at Berkeley Lab and technical editor of the report. “States and utilities can take the lead to make sure the clean-energy transition does not leave behind low-income households and communities of color. Decarbonization and energy equity goals are not mutually exclusive, and in fact, they need to go hand-in-hand.”

Energy bills and electricity rates are governed by state laws and utility regulators, whose mission is to ensure that utility services are reliable, safe, and fairly priced. Public utility commissions also are increasingly recognizing equity as an important goal, tool, and metric, and some customers face major changes to electric bills as reforms advance. While states can use existing authorities to advance equity in their decision-making, several, including Illinois, Maine, Oregon, and Washington, have enacted legislation over the last couple of years to more explicitly require utility regulators to consider equity.

“The infrastructure investments that utility companies make today, and regulator decisions about what goes into electricity bills, including new rate design steps that shape customer costs, will have significant impacts for decades to come,” Schwartz said.

Solutions recommended in the report include considering energy justice goals when determining the “public interest” in regulatory decisions, allocating funding for energy justice organizations to participate in utility proceedings, supporting utility programs that increase deployment of energy efficiency and solar for low-income households, and accounting for energy inequities and access in designing electricity rates, while examining future utility revenue models as technologies evolve.

The report is part of the Future of Electric Utility Regulation series that started in 2015, led by Berkeley Lab and funded by DOE, to encourage informed discussion and debate on utility trends and tackling the toughest issues related to state electric utility regulation. An advisory group of utilities, public utility commissioners, consumer advocates, environmental and social justice organizations, and other experts provides guidance.

Taking stock of past and current energy inequities

One focus of the report is electricity bills. In addition to charges based on usage, electricity bills usually also have a fixed basic customer charge, which is the minimum amount a household has to pay every month to access electricity. The fixed charge varies widely, from $5 to more than $20. In recent years, utility companies have sought sizable increases in this charge to cover more costs, amid rising electricity prices in some markets.

This fixed charge means that no matter what a household does to use energy more efficiently or to conserve energy, there is always a minimum cost. Moreover, low-income households often live in older, poorly insulated housing. Current levels of public and utility funding for energy-efficiency programs fall far short of the need. The combined result is that the energy burden – or percent of income needed to keep the lights on and their homes at a healthy temperature – is far greater for lower-income households.

“While all households require basic lighting, heating, cooling, and refrigeration, low-income households must devote a greater proportion of income to maintain basic service,” explained John Howat and Jenifer Bosco from the National Consumer Law Center and co-authors of Berkeley Lab’s report. Their analysis of data from the most recent U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey shows households with income less than $20,000 reported losing home heating service at a pace more than five times higher than households with income over $80,000. Households of color were far more likely than those with a white householder to report loss of heating service. In addition, low-income households and households of color are more likely to have to choose between paying their energy bill or paying for other necessities, such as healthcare or food.

Based on the most recent data (2015) from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), households with income less than $20,000 reported losing home heating service at a rate more than five times higher than households with income over $80,000. Households of color were far more likely than those with a white householder to report loss of heating service. Click on chart for larger view. (Credit: John Howat/National Consumer Law Center, using EIA data)

Moreover, while many of the infrastructure investment decisions that utilities make, such as whether and where to build a new power plant, often have long-term environmental and health consequences, impacted communities often are not at the table. “Despite bearing an inequitable proportion of the negative impacts of environmental injustices related to fossil fuel-based energy production and climate change, marginalized communities remain virtually unrepresented in the energy planning and decision-making processes that drive energy production, distribution, and regulation,” wrote Chandra Farley, CEO of ReSolve and a co-author of the report.

Engaging impacted communities
Each of the perspectives in the report identify a need for meaningful engagement of underrepresented and disadvantaged communities in energy planning and utility decision-making. “Connecting the dots between energy, racial injustice, economic disinvestment, health disparities, and other associated equity challenges becomes a clarion call for communities that are being completely left out of the clean energy economy,” wrote Farley, who previously served as the Just Energy Director at Partnership for Southern Equity. “We must prioritize the voices and lived experiences of residents if we are to have more equity in utility regulation and equitably transform the energy sector.”

In another essay in the report, Nidhi Thaker and Jake Wise from Portland General Electric identify the importance of collaborating directly with the communities they serve. In 2021, the Oregon Legislature passed Oregon HB 2475, which allows the Oregon Public Utility Commission to allocate ratepayer funding for organizations representing people most affected by a high energy burden, enabling them to participate in utility regulatory processes.

The report explains why energy equity requires correcting inequities resulting from past and present failures as well as rethinking how we achieve future energy and decarbonization goals. “Equity in energy requires adopting an expansive definition of the ‘public interest’ that encompasses energy, climate, and environmental justice. Energy equity also means prioritizing the deployment of distributed energy resources and clean energy technologies in areas that have been hit first and worst by the existing fossil fuel economy,” wrote Jean Su, energy justice director and senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity.

This report was supported by DOE’s Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium, with funding from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the Office of Electricity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Global Power Sector CO2 Surge 2021 shows electricity demand outpacing renewable energy, with coal and fossil fuels rebounding, undermining green recovery goals and climate change targets flagged by the IEA and IPCC.

Key Points

Record rise in power sector CO2 in 2021 as demand outpaced renewables and coal rebounded, undermining a green recovery.

✅ Electricity demand rose 5% above pre-pandemic levels

✅ Fossil fuels supplied 61% of power; coal led the rebound

✅ Wind and solar grew 15% but lagged demand

Carbon dioxide emissions from the global electric power sector surged past pre-pandemic levels to record highs in the first half of 2021, according to new research by London-based environmental think tank Ember.

Electricity demand and emissions are now 5% higher than where they were before the Covid-19 outbreak, which prompted worldwide lockdowns that led to a temporary drop in global greenhouse gas emissions. Electricity demand also surpassed the growth of renewable energy, and surging electricity demand is putting power systems under strain, the analysis found.

The findings signal a failure of countries to achieve a so-called “green recovery” that would entail shifting away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy, though European responses to Covid-19 have accelerated the electricity system transition by about a decade, to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

The report found that 61% of the world’s electricity still came from fossil fuels in 2020. Five G-20 countries had more than 75% of their electricity supplied from fossil fuels last year, with Saudi Arabia at 100%, South Africa at 89%, Indonesia at 83%, Mexico at 75% and Australia at 75%.

Coal generation did fall a record 4% in 2020, but overall coal supplied 43% of the additional energy demand between 2019 and 2020, with soaring electricity and coal use underscoring persistent demand pressures. Asia currently generates 77% of the world’s coal electricity and China alone generates 53%, up from 44% in 2015.

The world’s transition out of coal power, which contributes to roughly 30% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, is happening far too slowly to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, the study warned. And the International Energy Agency forecasts coal generation will rebound in 2021 as electricity demand picks up again, even as renewables are poised to eclipse coal by 2025 according to other analyses.

“Progress is nowhere near fast enough. Despite coal’s record drop during the pandemic, it still fell short of what is needed,” Ember lead analyst Dave Jones said in a statement.

Jones said coal power usage must collapse by 80% by the end of the decade to avoid dangerous levels of global warming above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).

“We need to build enough clean electricity to simultaneously replace coal and electrify the global economy,” Jones said. “World leaders have yet to wake up to the enormity of the challenge.”

The findings come ahead of a major U.N. climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland, in November, where negotiators will push for more ambitious climate action and emissions reduction pledges from nations.

Without immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions to global emissions, scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warn that the average global temperature will likely cross the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold within 20 years.

The study also highlighted some upsides. Wind and solar generation, for instance, rose by 15% in 2020, and low-emissions sources are set to cover almost all the growth in global electricity demand in the next three years, producing nearly a tenth of the world’s electricity last year and doubling production since 2015.

Some countries now get about 10% of their electricity from wind and solar, including India, China, Japan, Brazil. The U.S. and Europe have experienced the biggest growth in wind and solar, and in the EU, wind and solar generated more electricity than gas last year, with Germany at 33% and the U.K. leads the G20 for wind power at 29%.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

SCE Wildfire Lawsuits allege utility equipment and power lines sparked deadly Los Angeles blazes; investigations, inverse condemnation, and stricter utility regulations focus on liability, vegetation management, and wildfire safety amid Santa Ana winds.

Key Points

Residents sue SCE, alleging power lines ignited LA wildfires; seeking compensation under inverse condemnation.

✅ Videos cited show sparking lines near alleged ignition points.

✅ SCE denies wrongdoing; probes and inspections ongoing.

✅ Inverse condemnation may apply regardless of negligence.

In the aftermath of devastating wildfires in Los Angeles, residents have initiated legal action, similar to other mega-fire lawsuits underway in California, against Southern California Edison (SCE), alleging that the utility's equipment was responsible for sparking one of the most destructive fires. The fires have resulted in significant loss of life and property, prompting investigations into the causes and accountability of the involved parties.

The Fires and Their Impact

In early January 2025, Los Angeles experienced severe wildfires that ravaged neighborhoods, leading to the loss of at least 29 lives and the destruction of approximately 155 square kilometers of land. Areas such as Pacific Palisades and Altadena were among the hardest hit. The fires were exacerbated by arid conditions and strong Santa Ana winds, which contributed to their rapid spread and intensity.

Allegations Against Southern California Edison

Residents have filed lawsuits against SCE, asserting that the utility's equipment, particularly power lines, ignited the fires. Some plaintiffs have presented videos they claim show sparking power lines in the vicinity of the fire's origin. These legal actions seek to hold SCE accountable for the damages incurred, including property loss, personal injury, and emotional distress.

SCE's Response and Legal Context

Southern California Edison has denied any wrongdoing, stating that it has not detected any anomalies in its equipment that could have led to the fires. The utility has pledged to cooperate fully with investigations to determine the causes of the fires. California's legal framework, particularly the doctrine of "inverse condemnation," allows property owners to seek compensation from utilities for damages caused by public services, even without proof of negligence. This legal principle has been central in previous cases involving utility companies and wildfire damages, and similar allegations have arisen in other jurisdictions, such as an alleged faulty transformer case, highlighting shared risks.

Historical Context and Precedents

This situation is not unprecedented. In 2018, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) faced similar allegations when its equipment was implicated in the Camp Fire, the deadliest wildfire in California's history. PG&E's equipment was found to have ignited the fire, and the company later pleaded guilty in the Camp Fire, leading to extensive litigation and financial repercussions for the company, while its bankruptcy plan won support from wildfire victims during restructuring. The case highlighted the significant risks utilities face regarding wildfire safety and the importance of maintaining infrastructure to prevent such disasters.

Implications for California's Utility Regulations

The current lawsuits against SCE underscore the ongoing challenges California faces in balancing utility operations with wildfire prevention, as regulators face calls for action amid rising electricity bills. The state has implemented stricter regulations and oversight, and lawmakers have moved to crack down on utility spending to mitigate wildfire risks associated with utility infrastructure. Utilities are now required to invest in enhanced safety measures, including equipment inspections, vegetation management, and the implementation of advanced technologies to detect and prevent potential fire hazards. These regulatory changes aim to reduce the incidence of utility-related wildfires and protect communities from future disasters.

The legal actions against Southern California Edison reflect the complex interplay between utility operations, public safety, and environmental stewardship. As investigations continue, the outcomes of these lawsuits may influence future policies and practices concerning utility infrastructure and wildfire prevention in California. The state remains committed to enhancing safety measures to protect its residents and natural resources from the devastating effects of wildfires.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

Germany's Joint Onshore Wind and Solar Tender invites 200 MW bids in an EEG auction, with PV and onshore wind competing on price per MWh, including grid integration costs and network fees under BNA rules.

Key Points

A BNA-run 200 MW EEG auction where PV and onshore wind compete on price per MWh, including grid integration costs.

✅ 200 MW cap; minimum project size 750 kW

✅ Max subsidy 87.50 per MWh; bids include network costs

✅ Solar capped at 10-20 MW; wind requires prior approval

Germany's Federal Network Agency (BNA) has launched its second joint onshore wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) tender, with a total capacity of 200 MW.

A maximum guaranteed subsidy payment has been set at 87.50 per MWh for both energy sources, which BNA says will have to compete against each other for the lowest price of electricity. According to auction rules, all projects must have a minimum of 750 kW.

The auction is due to be completed on 2 November.

The network regulator has capped solar projects at 10 MW, though this has been extended to 20 MW in some districts, amid calls to remove barriers to PV at the federal level. Onshore wind projects did not receive any such restrictions, though they require approval from Federal Immission Control three weeks prior to the bid date of 11 Octobe

Bids also require network and system integration costs to be included, and similar solicitations have been heavily subscribed, as an over-subscribed Duke Energy solar solicitation in the US market illustrates.

According to Germanys Renewable Energy Act (EEG), two joint onshore wind and solar auctions must take place each year between 2018 and 2021. After this, the government will review the scheme and decide whether to continue it beyond 2021.

The first tender, conducted in April, saw the entire 200 MW capacity given to solar PV projects, reflecting a broader solar power boost in Germany during the energy crisis. Of the 32 contracts awarded, value varied from 39.60 per MWh to 57.60 per MWh. Among the winning bids were five projects in agricultural and grassland sites in Bavaria, totalling 31 MW, and three in Baden-Wrttemberg at 17 MW.

According to the Agency, the joint tender scheme was initiated in an attempt to determine the financial support requirements for wind and solar in technology-specific auctions, however, solar powers sole win in the April auction meant it was met with criticism, even as clean energy accounts for 50% of Germany's electricity today.

The heads of the Federal Solar Industry Association (BSW-Solar) and German Wind Energy Association (BWE) saying the joint tender scheme is unsuitable for the build-out of the two technologies.

A BWE spokesman previously stressed the companys rejection of competition between wind and solar, saying: It is not clear how this could contribute to an economically meaningful balanced energy mix,

Technologies that are in various stages of development must not enter into direct competition with each other. Otherwise, innovation and development potential will be compromised.

Similarly, BSW-Solar president Carsten Krnig said: We are happy for the many solar winners, but consider the experiment a failure. The auction results prove the excellent price-performance ratio of new solar power plants, as solar-plus-storage is cheaper than conventional power in Germany, but not the suitability of joint tenders.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News