B.C. homeowners not warming to solar power

Nunavut electricity rate increase sees QEC raise domestic electricity rates 6.6% over two years, affecting customer rates, base rates, subsidies, and kWh overage charges across communities, with public housing exempt and territory-wide pricing denied.

Key Points

A 6.6% QEC hike over 2018-2019, affecting customer rates, subsidies, and kWh overage; public housing remains exempt.

✅ 3.3% on May 1, 2018; 3.3% on Apr 1, 2019

✅ Subsidy caps: 1,000 kWh Oct-Mar; 700 kWh Apr-Sep

✅ Territory-wide base rate denied; public housing exempt

Ahead of the Nunavut government's approval of the general rate increase for the Qulliq Energy Corporation, many Nunavummiut wondered how the change would impact their electricity bills.

QEC's request for a 6.6-per-cent increase was approved by the government last week. The increase will be spread out over two years, a pattern similar to BC Hydro's two-year rate plan, with the first increase (3.3 per cent) effective May 1, 2018. The remaining 3.3 per cent will be applied on April 1, 2019.

Public housing units, however, are exempt from the government's increase altogether.

The power corporation also asked for a territory-wide rate, so every community would pay the same base rate (we'll go over specific terms in a minute if you're not familiar with them). But that request was denied, even as Manitoba Hydro scaled back increases next year, and QEC will now take the next two years reassessing each community's base rate.

#google#

So, what does this mean for your home's power bill? Well, there's a few things you need to know, which we'll get to in a second.

But in essence, as long as you don't go over the government-subsidized monthly electricity usage limit, you're paying an extra 3.61 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh).

To be clear, we're talking about non-government domestic rates — basically, private homeowners — and those living in a government-owned unit but pay for their own power.

The basics

First, some quick terminology. The "base rate" term we're going to use (and used above) in this story refers to the community rate. As in, what QEC charges customers in every community. The "customer rate" is the rate customers actually pay, after the government's subsidy.

The first thing you need to know is everyone in Nunavut starts off by paying the same customer rate, unlike jurisdictions using a price cap to limit spikes.

That's because the government subsidizes electricity costs, and that subsidy is different in every community, because the base rate is different.

For example, Iqaluit's new base rate after the 3.3 per cent increase (remember, the 6.6 per cent is being applied over two years) is 56.69 cents per kWh, while Kugaaruk's base rate rose to 112.34 cents per kWh. Those, by the way, are the territory's lowest and highest respective base rates.

However, customers in both Iqaluit and Kugaaruk will each now pay 28.35 cents per kWh because, remember, the government subsidizes the base rates in every community.

Now, remember earlier we mentioned a "government-subsidized monthly electricity usage limit?" That's where customers in various communities start to pay different amounts.

As simply as we can explain it, the government will only cover so much electricity usage in a month, in every household.

Between October and March, the government will subsidize the first 1,000 kilowatt hours, and only 700 kilowatt hours from April to September. QEC says the average Nunavut home will use about 500 kilowatt hours every month over the course of a year.

But if your household goes over that limit, you're at the mercy of your community's base rate for any extra electricity you use. Homes in Kugaaruk in December, for instance, will have to pay that 122.34 cents for every extra kilowatt hour it uses, while homes in Iqaluit only have to pay 56.69 cents per kWh for its extra electricity.

That's where many Nunavummiut have criticized the current rate structure, because smaller communities are paying more for their extra costs than larger communities.

QEC had hoped — as it had asked for — to change the structure so every community pays the same base rate. So regardless of if people go over their electricity usage limits for the government subsidy, everyone would pay the same overage rates.

But the government denied that request.

New rate is actually lower

The one thing we should highlight, however, is the new rate after the increase is actually lower than what customers were paying in 2014.

For the past seven months, customers have been getting power from QEC at a discount, whereas Newfoundland customers began paying for Muskrat Falls during the same period, to different effect.

That's because when QEC sets its rates, it does so based on global oil price forecasts. Since 2014, the price of oil worldwide has slumped, and so QEC was able to purchase it at less than it had anticipated.

When that happens, and QEC makes more than $1 million within a six month period thanks to the lower oil prices, it refunds the excess profits back to customers through a discount on electricity base rates — a mechanism similar to a lump-sum credit used elsewhere — the government subsidy, however, doesn't change so the savings are passed on directly to customers.

Now, the 6.6 per cent increase to electricity rates, is actually being applied to the discounted base rate from the last seven months.

So again, while customers are paying more than they have been for the last seven months, it's lower than what they were paying in 2014.

Lastly, to be clear, all the figures used in this story are only for domestic non-government rates. Commercial rates and changes have not been explored in this story, given the differences in subsidy and rate application.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. Power Sector Outlook 2022 previews clean energy targets, grid reliability and resilience upgrades, transmission expansion, renewable integration, EV charging networks, and decarbonization policies shaping utilities, markets, and climate strategies amid extreme weather risks.

Key Points

An outlook on clean energy goals, grid resilience, transmission, and EV infrastructure shaping U.S. decarbonization.

✅ States set 100% clean power targets; equity plans deepen.

✅ Grid reforms, transmission builds, and RTO debates intensify.

✅ EV plants, batteries, and charging corridors accelerate.

As sweeping climate legislation stalled in Congress this year, states and utilities were busy aiming to reshape the future of electricity.

States expanded clean energy goals and developed blueprints on how to reach them. Electric vehicles got a boost from new battery charging and factory plans.

The U.S. power sector also is sorting through billions of dollars of damage that will be paid for by customers over time. States coped with everything from blackouts during a winter storm to heat waves, hurricanes, wildfires and tornadoes. The barrage has added urgency to a push for increased grid reliability and resilience, especially as the power generation mix evolves, EV grid challenges grow as electricity is used to power cars and the climate changes.

“The magnitude of our inability to serve with these sort of discontinuous jumps in heat or cold or threats like wildfires and flooding has made it really clear that we can’t take the grid for granted anymore — and that we need to do something,” said Alison Silverstein, a Texas-based energy consultant.

Many of the announcements in 2021 could see further developments next year as legislatures, utilities and regulators flesh out details on everything from renewable projects to ways to make the grid more resilient.

On the policy front, the patchwork of state renewable energy and carbon reduction goals stands out considering Congress’ failure so far to advance a key piece of President Biden’s agenda — the "Build Back Better Act," which proposed about $550 billion for climate action. Criticism from fellow Democrats has rained on Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) since he announced his opposition this month to that legislation (E&E Daily, Dec. 21).

The Biden administration has taken some steps to advance its priorities as it looks to decarbonize the U.S. power sector by 2035. That includes promoting electric vehicles, which are part of a goal to make the United States have net-zero emissions economywide no later than 2050. The administration has called for a national network of 500,000 EV charging stations as the American EV boom raises power-supply questions, and mandated the government begin buying only EVs by 2035.

Still, the fate of federal legislation and spending is uncertain. States and utility plans are considered a critical factor in whether Biden’s targets come to fruition. Silverstein also stressed the importance of regional cooperation as policymakers examine the grid and challenges ahead.

“Our comfort as individuals and as households and as an economy depends on the grid staying up,” Silverstein said, “and that’s no longer a given.”

Here are three areas of the electricity sector that saw changes in 2021, and could see significant developments next year:

1. Clean energy
The list of states with new or revamped clean energy goals expanded again in 2021, with Oregon and Illinois joining the ranks requiring 100 percent zero-carbon electricity in 2040 and 2050, respectively.

Washington state passed a cap-and-trade bill. Massachusetts and Rhode Island adopted 2050 net-zero goals.

North Carolina adopted a law requiring a 70 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels and establishing a midcentury net-zero goal.

Nebraska didn’t adopt a statewide policy, but its three public power districts voted separately to approve clean energy goals, actions that will collectively have the same effect. Even the governor of fossil-fuel-heavy North Dakota, during an oil conference speech, declared a goal of making the state carbon-neutral by the end of the decade.

These and other states join hundreds of local governments, big energy users and utilities, which were also busy establishing and reworking renewable energy and climate goals this year in response to public and investor pressure.

However, many of the details on how states will reach those targets are still to be determined, including factors such as how much natural gas will remain online and how many renewable projects will connect to the grid.

Decisions on clean energy that could be made in 2022 include a key one in Arizona, which has seen support rise and fall over the years for a proposal to lead to 100 percent clean power for regulated electric utilities. The Arizona Corporation Commission could discuss the matter in January, though final approval of the plan is not a sure thing. Eyes also are on California, where a much bigger grid for EVs will be needed, as it ponders a recent proposal on rooftop solar that has supporters of renewables worried about added costs that could hamper the industry.

In the wake of the major energy bill North Carolina passed in 2021, observers are waiting for Duke Energy Corp.’s filing of its carbon-reduction plan with state utility regulators. That plan will help determine the future electricity mix in the state.

Warren Leon, executive director of the Clean Energy States Alliance (CESA), said that without federal action, state goals are “going to be more difficult to achieve.”

State and federal policies are complementary, not substitutes, he said. And Washington can provide a tailwind and help states achieve their goals more quickly and easily.

“Progress is going to be most rapid if both the states and the federal government are moving in the same direction, but either of them operating independently of the others can still make a difference,” he said.

While emissions reductions and renewable energy goals were centerpieces of the state energy and climate policies adopted this year, there were some other common threads that could continue in 2022.

One that’s gone largely unnoticed is that an increasing number of states went beyond just setting targets for clean energy and have developed plans, or road maps, for how to meet their goals, Leon said.

Like the New Year resolutions that millions of Americans are planning — pledges to eat healthier or exercise more — it’s far easier to set ambitious goals than to achieve them.

According to CESA, California, Colorado, Nevada, Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Washington state all established plans for how to achieve their clean energy goals. Prior to late 2020, only two states — New York and New Jersey — had done so.

Another trend in state energy and climate policies: Equity and energy justice provisions factored heavily in new laws in places such as Maine, Illinois and Oregon.

Equity isn’t a new concern for states, Leon said. But state plans have become more detailed in terms of their response to ways the energy transition may affect vulnerable populations.

“They’re putting much more concrete actions in place,” he said. “And they are really figuring out how they go about electricity system planning to make sure there are new voices at the table, that the processes are different, and there are things that are going to be measured to determine whether they’re actually making progress toward equity.”

2. Grid
Climate change and natural disasters have been a growing worry for grid planners, and 2021 was a year the issue affected many Americans directly.

Texas’ main power grid suffered massive outages during a deadly February winter storm, and it wasn’t far from an uncontrolled blackout that could have required weeks or months of recovery.

Consumers elsewhere in the country watched as millions of Texans lost grid power and heat amid a bitter cold snap. Other parts of the central United States saw more limited power outages in February.

“I think people care about the grid a lot more this year than they did last year,” Silverstein said, adding, “All of a sudden people are realizing that electricity’s not as easy as they’ve assumed it was and … that we need to invest more.”

Many of the challenges are not specific to one state, she added.

“It seems to me that the state regulators need to put a lot — and utilities need to put a lot — more commitment into working together to solve broad regional problems in cooperative regional ways,” Silverstein said.

In 2022, multiple decisions could affect the grid, including state oversight of spending on upgrades and market proposals that could sway the amount of clean energy brought online.

A focal point will be Texas, where state regulators are examining further changes to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas’ market design. That could have major implications for how renewables develop in the state. Leaders in other parts of the country will likely keep tabs on adjustments in Texas as they ponder their own changes.

Texas has already embarked on reforms to help improve the power sector and its coordination with the natural gas system, which is critical to keeping plants running. But its primary power grid, operated by ERCOT, remains largely isolated and hasn’t been able to rule out power shortages this winter if there are extreme conditions (Energywire, Nov. 22).

Transmission also remains a key issue outside of the Lone Star State, both for resilience and to connect new wind and solar farms. In many areas of the country, the job of planning these new regional lines and figuring out how to allocate billions of dollars in costs falls to regional grid operators (Energywire, Dec. 13).

In the central U.S., the issue led to tension between states in the Midwest and the Gulf South (Energywire, Oct. 15).

In the Northeast, a Maine environmental commissioner last month suspended a permit for a major transmission project that could send hydropower to the region from Canada (Greenwire, Nov. 24). The project’s developers are now battling the state in court to force construction of the line — a process that could be resolved in 2022 — after Mainers signaled opposition in a November vote.

Advocates of a regional transmission organization for Western states, meanwhile, hope to keep building momentum even as critics question the cost savings promoted by supporters of organized markets. Among those in existing markets, states such as Louisiana are expected to monitor the costs and benefits of being associated with the Midcontinent Independent System Operator.

In other states, more details are expected to emerge in 2022 about plans announced this year.

In California, where policymakers are also exploring EVs for grid stability alongside wildfire prevention, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. announced a plan over the summer to spend billions of dollars to underground some 10,000 miles of power lines to help prevent wildfires, for example (Greenwire, July 22).

Several Southeastern utilities, including Dominion Energy Inc., Duke Energy, Southern Co. and the Tennessee Valley Authority, won FERC approval to create a new grid plan — the Southeast Energy Exchange Market, or SEEM — that they say will boost renewable energy.

SEEM is an electricity trading platform that will facilitate trading close to the times when the power is used. The new market is slated to include two time zones, which would allow excess renewables such as solar and wind to be funneled to other parts of the country to be used during peak demand times.

SEEM is significant because the Southeast does not have an organized market structure like other parts of the country, although some utilities such as Dominion and Duke do have some operations in the region managed by PJM Interconnection LLC, the largest U.S. regional grid operator.

SEEM is not a regional transmission organization (RTO) or energy imbalance market. Critics argue that because it doesn’t include a traditional independent monitor, SEEM lacks safeguards against actions that could manipulate energy prices.

Others have said the electric companies that formed SEEM did so to stave off pressure to develop an RTO. Some of the regulated electric companies involved in the new market have denied that claim.

3. Electric vehicles
With electric vehicles, the Midwest and Southeast gained momentum in 2021 as hubs for electrifying the transportation sector, as EVs hit an inflection point in mainstream adoption, and the Biden administration simultaneously worked to boost infrastructure to help get more EVs on the road.

From battery makers to EV startups to major auto manufacturers, companies along the entire EV supply chain spectrum moved to or expanded in those two regions, solidifying their footprint in the fast-growing sector.

A wave of industry announcements capped off in December with California-based Rivian Automotive Inc. declaring it would build a $5 billion electric truck, SUV and van factory in Georgia. Toyota Motor Corp. picked North Carolina for its first U.S.-based battery plant. General Motors Co. and a partner plan to build a $2.5 billion battery plant in GM’s home state of Michigan. And Proterra Inc. has unveiled plans to build a new battery factory in South Carolina.

Advocates hope the EV shift by automakers in the Midwest and Southeast will widen the options for customers. Automakers and startups also have been targeting states with zero-emission vehicle targets to launch new and more models because there’s an inherent demand for them.

“The states that have adopted those standards are getting more vehicles,” said Anne Blair, senior EV policy manager for the Electrification Coalition.

EV advocates say they hope those policies could help bring products like Ford’s electrified signature truck line on the road and into rural areas. Ford also is partnering with Korean partner SK Innovation Co. Ltd. to build two massive battery plants in Kentucky.

Regardless of the fanfare about new vehicles, more jobs and must-needed economic growth, barriers to EV adoption remain. Many states have tacked on annual fees, which some elected officials argue are needed to replace revenues secured from a gasoline tax.

Other states do not allow automakers to sell directly to consumers, preventing companies like Lordstown Motors Corp. and Rivian to effectively do business there.

“It’s about consumer choice and consumers having the capacity to buy the vehicles that they want and that are coming out, in new and innovative ways,” Blair told E&E News. Blair said direct sales also will help boost EV sales at traditional dealerships.

In 2022, advocates will be closely watching progress with the National Electric Highway Coalition, amid tensions over charging control among utilities and networks, which was formed by more than 50 U.S. power companies to build a coast-to-coast fast-charging network for EVs along major U.S. travel corridors by the end of 2023 (Energywire, Dec. 7).

A number of states also will be holding legislative sessions, and they could include new efforts to promote EVs — or change benefits that currently go to owners of alternative vehicles.

EV advocates will be pushing for lawmakers to remove barriers that they argue are preventing customers from buying alternative vehicles.

Conversations already have begun in Georgia to let startup EV makers sell their cars and trucks directly to consumers. In Florida, lawmakers will try again to start a framework that will create a network of charging stations as charging networks jostle for position under federal electrification efforts, as well as add annual fees to alternative vehicles to ease concerns over lost gasoline tax revenue.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

CCUS in the U.S. Power Sector drives investments as DOE grants, 45Q tax credits, and EPA carbon rules spur carbon capture, geologic storage, and utilization, while debates persist over costs, transparency, reliability, and emissions safeguards.

Key Points

CCUS captures CO2 from power plants for storage or use, backed by 45Q tax credits, DOE funding, and EPA carbon rules.

✅ DOE grants and 45Q credits aim to de-risk project economics.

✅ EPA rules may require capture rates to meet emissions limits.

✅ Transparency and MRV guard against tax credit abuse.

New public and private funding, including DOE $110M for CCUS announced recently, and expected strong federal power plant emissions reduction standards have accelerated electricity sector investments in carbon capture, utilization and storage,’ or CCUS, projects but some worry it is good money thrown after bad.

CCUS separates carbon from a fossil fuel-burning power plant’s exhaust through carbon capture methods for geologic storage or use in industrial and other applications, according to the Department of Energy. Fossil fuel industry giants like Calpine and Chevron are looking to take advantage of new federal tax credits and grant funding for CCUS to manage potentially high costs in meeting power plant performance requirements, amid growing investor pressure for climate reporting, including new rules, expected from EPA soon, on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants.

Power companies have “ambitious plans” to add CCUS to power plants, estimated to cause 25% of U.S. CO2 emissions. As a result, the power sector “needs CCUS in its toolkit,” said DOE Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Assistant Secretary Brad Crabtree. Successful pilots and demonstrations “will add to investor confidence and lead to more deployment” to provide dispatchable clean energy, including emerging CO2-to-electricity approaches for power system reliability after 2030,| he added.

But environmentalists and others insist potentially cost-prohibitive CCUS infrastructure, including CO2 storage hub initiatives, must still prove itself effective under rigorous and transparent federal oversight.

“The vast majority of long-term U.S. power sector needs can be met without fossil generation, and better options are being deployed and in development,” Sierra Club Senior Advisor, Strategic Research and Development, Jeremy Fisher, said, pointing to carbon-free electricity investments gaining momentum in the market. CCUS “may be needed, but without better guardrails, power sector abuses of federal funding could lead to increased emissions and stranded fossil assets,” he added.

New DOE CCUS project grants, an increased $85 per metric ton, or tonne, federal 45Q tax credit, and the forthcoming EPA power plant carbon rules and the federal coal plan will do for CCUS what similar policies did for renewables, advocates and opponents agreed. But controversial past CCUS performance and tax credit abuses must be avoided with transparent reporting requirements for CO2 capture, opponents added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Russia-Ukraine Energy Ceasefire Violations escalate as U.S.-brokered truce frays, with drone strikes, shelling, and grid attacks disrupting gas supply and power infrastructure across Kursk, Luhansk, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk, prompting sanctions calls.

Key Points

Alleged breaches of a U.S.-brokered truce, with both sides striking power grids, gas lines, and critical energy nodes.

✅ Drone and artillery attacks reported on power and gas assets

✅ Both sides accuse each other of breaking truce terms

✅ U.S. mediation faces verification and compliance hurdles

Russia and Ukraine have traded fresh accusations regarding violations of a fragile energy ceasefire, brokered by the United States, which both sides had agreed to last month. These new allegations highlight the ongoing tensions between the two nations and the challenges involved in implementing a truce amid global energy instability in such a complex and volatile conflict.

The U.S.-brokered ceasefire had initially aimed to reduce the intensity of the fighting, specifically in the energy sector, where both sides had previously targeted each other’s infrastructure. Despite this agreement, the accusations on Wednesday suggest that both Russia and Ukraine have continued their attacks on each other's energy facilities, a crucial aspect of the ceasefire’s terms.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence claimed that Ukrainian forces had launched drone and shelling attacks in the western Kursk region, cutting power to over 1,500 homes. This attack allegedly targeted key infrastructure, leaving several localities without electricity. Additionally, in the Russian-controlled part of Ukraine's Luhansk region, a Ukrainian drone strike hit a gas distribution station, severely disrupting the gas supply for over 11,000 customers in the area around Svatove.

In response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Russia of breaking the ceasefire. He claimed that Russian drone strikes had targeted an energy substation in Ukraine’s Sumy region, while artillery fire had damaged a power line in the Dnipropetrovsk region, leaving nearly 4,000 consumers without power even as Ukraine increasingly leans on electricity imports to stabilize the grid. Ukraine's accusations painted a picture of continued Russian aggression against critical energy infrastructure, a strategy that had previously been a hallmark of Russia’s broader military operations in the war.

The U.S. had brokered the energy truce as a potential stepping stone toward a more comprehensive ceasefire agreement. However, the repeated violations raise questions about the truce’s viability and the broader prospects for peace between Russia and Ukraine. Both sides are accusing each other of undermining the agreement, which had already been delicate due to previous suspicions and mistrust. In particular, the U.S. administration, led by President Donald Trump, has expressed impatience with the slow progress in moving toward a lasting peace, amid debates over U.S. national energy security priorities.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov defended Russia’s stance, emphasizing that President Vladimir Putin had shown a commitment to peace by agreeing to the energy truce, despite what he termed as daily Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure. He reiterated that Russia would continue to cooperate with the U.S., even though the Ukrainian strikes were ongoing. This perspective suggests that Russia remains committed to the truce but views Ukraine’s actions as violations that could potentially derail efforts to reach a more comprehensive ceasefire.

On the other hand, President Zelensky argued that Russia was not adhering to the terms of the ceasefire. He urged the U.S. to take a stronger stance against Russia, including increasing sanctions on Moscow as punishment for its violations. Zelensky’s call for heightened sanctions is a continuation of his efforts to pressure international actors, particularly the U.S. and European countries, to provide greater energy security support for Ukraine’s struggle and to hold Russia accountable for its actions.

The ceasefire’s fragility is also reflected in the differing views between Ukraine and Russia on what constitutes a successful resolution. Ukraine had proposed a full 30-day ceasefire, but President Putin declined, raising concerns about monitoring and verifying compliance with the terms. This disagreement suggests that both sides are not entirely aligned on what a peaceful resolution should look like and how it can be realistically achieved.

The situation is complicated by the broader context of the war, which has now dragged on for over three years. The conflict has seen significant casualties, immense destruction, and deep geopolitical ramifications. Both countries are heavily reliant on their energy infrastructures, making any attack on these systems not only a military tactic but also a form of economic warfare. Energy resources, including electricity and natural gas, have become central to the ongoing conflict, with both sides using them to exert pressure on the other amid Europe's deepening energy crisis that reverberates beyond the battlefield.

As of now, it remains unclear whether the recent violations of the energy ceasefire will lead to a breakdown of the truce or whether the United States will intervene further to restore compliance, even as Ukraine prepares for winter amid energy challenges. The situation remains fluid, and the international community continues to closely monitor the developments. The U.S., which played a central role in brokering the energy ceasefire, has made it clear that it expects both sides to uphold the terms of the agreement and work toward a more permanent cessation of hostilities.

The continued accusations between Russia and Ukraine regarding the breach of the energy ceasefire underscore the challenges of negotiating peace in such a complex and entrenched conflict. While both sides claim to be upholding their commitments, the reality on the ground suggests that reaching a full and lasting peace will require much more than temporary truces. The international community, particularly the U.S., will likely continue to push for stronger actions to enforce compliance and to prevent the conflict from further escalating. The outcome of this dispute will have significant implications for both countries and the broader European energy landscape and security landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

UK Electricity-Gas Price Decoupling aims to reform wholesale electricity pricing under the Energy Security Bill, shielding households from gas price spikes, supporting renewables, and easing the cost-of-living crisis through market redesign and transparent tariffs.

Key Points

Policy to decouple power prices from gas via the Energy Security Bill, stabilizing bills and reflecting renewables

✅ Breaks gas-to-power pricing link to cut electricity costs

✅ Reduces volatility; shields households from global gas shocks

✅ Highlights benefits of renewables and market transparency

Britons could be handed relief on rocketing household bills under Government plans to sever the link between the prices of gas and electricity, including proposals to restrict energy prices in the market, it has emerged.

Ministers are set to bring forward new laws under the Energy Security Bill to overhaul the UK's energy market in the face of the current cost-of-living crisis.

They have promised to provide greater protection for Britons against global fluctuations in energy prices, through a price cap on bills among other measures.

The current worldwide crisis has been exacerbated by the Ukraine war, which has sent gas prices spiralling higher.

Under the current make-up of Britain's energy market, soaring natural gas prices have had a knock-on effect on electricity costs.

But it has now been reported the new legislation will seek to prevent future shocks in the global gas market having a similar impact on electricity prices.

Yet the overhaul might not come in time to ease high winter energy costs for households ahead of this winter.

According to The Times, Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng will outline proposals for reforms in the coming weeks.

These will then form part of the Energy Security Bill to be introduced in the autumn, with officials anticipating a decrease in energy bills by April.

The newspaper said the plans will end the current system under which the wholesale cost of gas effectively determines the price of electricity for households.

Although more than a quarter of Britain's electricity comes from renewable sources, under current market rules it is the most expensive megawatt needed to meet demand that determines the price for all electricity generation.

This means that soaring gas prices have driven up all electricity costs in recent months, even though only around 40% of UK electricity comes from gas power stations.

Energy experts have compared the current market to train passengers having to pay the peak-period price for every journey they make.

One Government source told The Times: 'In the past it didn’t really matter because the price of gas was reasonably stable.

'Now it seems completely crazy that the price of electricity is based on the price of gas when a large amount of our generation is from renewables.'

It was also claimed ministers hope the reforms will make the market more transparent and emphasise to consumers the benefits of decarbonisation, amid an ongoing industry debate over free electricity for consumers.

A Government spokesperson said: 'The high global gas prices and linked high electricity prices that we are currently facing have given added urgency to the need to consider electricity market reform.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

European Energy Crisis shocks markets as Russia slashes gas via Nord Stream, spiking prices and triggering rationing, LNG imports, storage shortfalls, and emergency measures to secure energy security before a harsh winter.

Key Points

Europe-wide gas shock from reduced Russian flows drives price spikes, rationing risk, LNG reliance, and emergency action.

✅ Nord Stream cuts deepen supply insecurity and storage gaps

✅ LNG imports rise but terminal capacity and shipping are tight

✅ Policy tools: rationing, subsidies, demand response, coal restarts

As Russian gas cutoffs upend European energy security, the continent is struggling to cope with what experts say is one of its worst-ever energy crises—and it could still get much worse. 

For months, European leaders have been haunted by the prospect of losing Russia’s natural gas supply, which accounts for some 40 percent of European imports and has been a crucial energy lifeline for the continent. That nightmare is now becoming a painful reality as Moscow slashes its flows in retaliation for Europe’s support for Ukraine, dramatically increasing energy prices and forcing many countries to resort to emergency plans, including emergency measures to limit electricity prices in some cases, and as backup energy suppliers such as Norway and North Africa are failing to step up.

“This is the most extreme energy crisis that has ever occurred in Europe,” said Alex Munton, an expert on global gas markets at Rapidan Energy Group, a consultancy. “Europe [is] looking at the very real prospect of not having sufficient gas when it’s most needed, which is during the coldest part of the year.”

“Prices have shot through the roof,” added Munton, who noted that European natural gas prices—nearly $50 per MMBTu—have eclipsed U.S. price rises by nearly tenfold, and that rolling back electricity prices is tougher than it appears in the current market. “That is an extraordinarily high price to be paying for natural gas, and really there is no immediate way out from here.” 

Many officials and energy experts worry that the crisis will only deepen after Nord Stream 1, the largest gas pipeline from Russia to Europe, is taken down for scheduled maintenance this week. Although the pipeline is supposed to be under repair for only 10 days, the Kremlin’s history of energy blackmail and weaponization has stoked fears that Moscow won’t turn it back on—leaving heavily reliant European countries in the lurch. (Russia’s second pipeline to Germany, Nord Stream 2, was killed in February as Russian President Vladimir Putin prepared to invade Ukraine, leaving Nord Stream 1 as the biggest direct gas link between Russia and Europe’s biggest economy.)

“Everything is possible. Everything can happen,” German economy minister Robert Habeck told Deutschlandfunk on Saturday. “It could be that the gas flows again, maybe more than before. It can also be the case that nothing comes.”

That would spell trouble for the upcoming winter, when demand for energy surges and having sufficient natural gas is necessary for heating. European countries typically rely on the summer months to refill their gas storage facilities. And at a time of war, when the continent’s future gas supply is uncertain, having that energy cushion is especially crucial.

If Russia’s prolonged disruptions continue, experts warn of a difficult winter: one of potential rationing, industrial shutdowns, and even massive economic dislocation. British officials, who just a few months ago warned of soaring power bills for consumers, are now warning of even worse, despite a brief fall to pre-Ukraine war levels in gas prices earlier in the year.

Europe could face a “winter of discontent,” said Helima Croft, a managing director at RBC Capital Markets. “Rationing, industrial shut-ins—all of that is looming.”

Unrest has already been brewing, with strikes erupting across the continent as households struggle under the pressures of spiraling costs of living and inflationary pressures. Some of this discontent has also had knock-on effects in the energy market. In Norway, the European Union’s biggest supplier of natural gas after Russia, mass strikes in the oil and gas industries last week forced companies to shutter production, sending further shockwaves throughout Europe.

European countries are at risk of descending into “very, very strong conflict and strife because there is no energy,” Frans Timmermans, the vice president of the European Commission, told the Guardian. “Putin is using all the means he has to create strife in our societies, so we have to brace ourselves for a very difficult period.”

The pain of the crisis, however, is perhaps being felt most clearly in Germany, which has been forced to turn to a number of energy-saving measures, including rationing heated water and closing swimming pools. To cope with the crunch, Berlin has already entered the second phase of its three-stage emergency gas plan; last week, it also moved to bail out its energy giants amid German utility troubles that have been financially slammed by Russian cutoffs. 

But it’s not just Germany. “This is happening all across Europe,” said Olga Khakova, an expert on European energy security at the Atlantic Council, who noted that France has also announced plans to nationalize the EDF power company as it buckles under mounting economic losses, and the EU outlines gas price cap strategies to temper volatility. “The challenging part is how much can these governments provide in support to their energy consumers, to these companies? And what is that breaking point?”

The situation has also complicated many countries’ climate goals, even as some call it a wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels for Europe. In late June, Germany, Italy, Austria, and the Netherlands announced they would restart old coal power plants as they grapple with shrinking supplies. 

The potential outcomes that European nations are grappling with reveal how this crisis is occurring on a scale that has only been seen in times of war, Munton said. In the worst-case scenario, “we’re talking about rationing gas supplies, and this is not something that Europe has had to contend with in any other time than the wartime,” he said. “That’s essentially where things have got to now. This is an energy war.”

They also underscore the long and painful battle that Europe will continue to face in weaning itself off Russian gas. Despite the continent’s eagerness to leave Moscow’s supply behind, experts say Europe will likely remain trapped in this spiraling crisis until it can develop the infrastructure for greater energy independence—and that could take years. U.S. gas, shipped by tanker, is one option, but that requires new terminals to receive the gas and U.S. energy impacts remain a factor for policymakers. New pipelines take even longer to build—and there isn’t a surfeit of eligible suppliers.

Until then, European leaders will continue to scramble to secure enough supplies—and can only hope for mild weather. The “worst-case scenario is people having to choose between eating and heating come winter,” Croft said. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News