CMAJ article blames isotope crisis on supplier

Ukraine Power Grid Resilience details preparations for winter blackouts, airstrike defense, decentralized generation, backup generators, battery storage, DTEK restorations, EU grid synchronization, and upgraded air defenses to safeguard electricity, heating, water, and essential services.

Key Points

Ukraine Power Grid Resilience is a strategy to harden energy systems against winter attacks and outages.

✅ DTEK repairs, backup equipment, and fortified plants across Ukraine

✅ Expanded air defenses targeting missiles and attack drones

✅ EU grid sync enables emergency imports and power trading

Oleksandr Gindyuk is determined not to be caught off guard if electricity supplies fail again this winter. When Russia pounded Ukraine’s power grid with widespread and repeated waves of airstrikes last year, causing massive rolling blackouts, his wife had just given birth to their second daughter.

“It was quite difficult,”  Gindyuk, who lives with his family in the suburbs of the capital, Kyiv, told CNN. “There is no life in our house if there is no electricity. Without electricity, we have no water, light or heating.”

He has spent the summer preparing for Russia to repeat its strategy, which was designed to sow terror and make life unsustainable, robbing Ukrainians of heat, water and health services. “We are totally ready — we have a diesel generator and a powerful 9 kWh battery. We are not scared, we are ready,” Gindyuk told CNN.

As families like Gindyuk’s gird themselves for the possibility of another dark winter, Ukraine has been rushing to rebuild and, drawing on protecting the grid lessons, protect its fragile energy infrastructure.

The summer provided a respite for Ukraine’s power grid. Russia focused its attacks on military targets and on ports on the Black Sea and the Danube River, to hinder Ukraine’s efforts to move grain and choke off an important income stream.

As the days grow shorter and the temperatures drop, Russia has another opportunity to try to break Ukrainian resilience with punishing blackouts. But this winter, defense and energy officials say Ukraine is better prepared.

With limited Ukrainian air defenses in operation last year, Russia was able to target and hit the energy grid easily, including during missile and drone assaults on Kyiv’s grid that strained responders.

“The Russians may use a combination of missile weapons and attack UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones). These will definitely not be such primitive attacks as last year. It will be difficult for the Russians to achieve a result - we are also preparing and understanding how they act.”

DTEK, the country’s largest private energy company, has spent the past seven months restoring infrastructure, trying to boost output and bolstering defenses at its facilities across Ukraine, mindful of Russian utility hacks reported elsewhere.

“We restored what could be restored, bought back-up equipment and installed defenses around power plants, as Russian-linked breaches at US plants have underscored risks,” DTEK chief executive Maxim Timchenko told CNN.

The company generates around a quarter of Ukraine’s electricity and runs 40% of its grid network, making it a prime target for Russian attacks. Four DTEK employees have been killed while on duty and its power stations have been attacked nearly 300 times since the start of the full-scale invasion, according to the company. “Last winter, determination carried us through. This winter we are stronger, and our people are more experienced,” Timchenko said.

Russia launched 1,200 attacks on Ukraine’s energy system between October 2022 and April 2023, with every thermal power and hydro-electric plant in the country sustaining some damage, according to DTEK.

In a damage assessment report released in June, the United Nations Development Programme said that Ukraine’s power generation capacity had been reduced to about half of what it was before Russia’s full-scale invasion. “Ukraine’s power system continues to operate in an emergency mode, which affects both power grids and generation, amid rising concerns about state-backed grid hacking worldwide,” a news release accompanying the report said.

The report also laid out a roadmap to rebuilding the energy sector, prioritizing decentralization, renewable energy sources and greater integration with the European Union. Ukraine has been hooked into the EU’s power grid since the full-scale invasion, allowing it to synchronize and trade power with the bloc. But the massive wave of attacks on energy infrastructure last winter threw that balance off kilter.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Israel Electricity Reform Competition opens the supply segment to private suppliers, challenges IEC price controls, and promises consumer choice, marginal discounts, and market liberalization amid natural gas generation and infrastructure remaining with IEC.

Key Points

Policy opening 40% of supply to private vendors, enabling consumer choice and small discounts while IEC retains the grid.

✅ 40% of retail supply opened to private electricity suppliers

✅ IEC keeps meters, lines; tariffs still regulated by the authority

✅ Expected discounts near 7%, not dramatic price cuts initially

"See the pseudo-reform in the electricity sector: no lower prices, no opening the market to competition, and no choice of electricity suppliers, with a high rate for consumers despite natural gas." This is an advertisement by the Private Power Producers Forum that is appearing everywhere: Facebook, the Internet, billboards, and the press.

Is it possible that the biggest reform in the economy with a cost estimated by Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) (TASE: ELEC.B22) at NIS 7 billion is really a pseudo-reform? In contrast to the assertions by the private electricity producers, who are supposedly worried about our wallets and want to bring down the cost of electricity for us, the reform will open a segment of electricity supply to competition, as agreed in the final discussions about the reform. No less than 40% of this segment will be removed from IEC's exclusive responsibility and pass to private hands.

This means that in the not-too-distant future, one million households in Israel will be able to choose between different electricity suppliers. IEC will retain the infrastructure, with its meter and power lines, but for the first time, the supplier who sends the monthly bill to our home can be a private concern.

Up until now, the only regulatory agency determining the electricity rate in Israel was the Public Utilities Authority (electricity), i.e. the state. Now, in the framework of the reform, as a result of opening the supply segment to competition, private electricity producers will be able to offer a lower rate than IEC's, with mechanisms like electricity auctions shown to cut costs in some markets, while IEC's rate will still be controlled by the Public Utilities Authority (electricity).

This situation differs from the situation in almost all European countries, where the electricity market is fully open to competition and the EU is pursuing an electricity market revamp to address pricing challenges, with no electricity price controls and free switching by consumers between electricity producers, just as in the mobile phone market. This measure has not lowered electricity prices in Europe, where rates are higher than in Israel, which is in the bottom third of OECD countries in its electricity rate.

Regardless of reports, supply will be opened to competition and we will be able to choose between electricity suppliers in the future. Are the private electricity producers nevertheless right when they say that the electricity sector will not be opened to "real competition"?

What is obviously necessary is for the private producers to offer a substantially lower rate than IEC in order to attract as many new customers as possible and win their trust. Can the private producers offer a significantly lower rate than IEC? The answer is no, at least not in the near future. The teams handling the negotiations are aware of this. "The private supplier's price will not be significantly cheaper than IEC's controlled price; there will be marginal discounts," a senior government source explains. "What is involved here is another electricity intermediary, so it will not contribute to competition and lowering the price," he added.

There are already private electricity producers supplying electricity to large business customers - factories, shopping malls, and so forth - at a 7% discount. The rest of the electricity that they produce is sold to the system manager. When supply is opened to competition, it can be assumed that the private suppliers will also be able to offer a similar discount to private consumers.

Will a 7% discount cause a home consumer to leave reliable and familiar IEC for a private producer, given evidence from retail electricity competition in other markets? This is hard to know.

#google#

Why cannot private electricity producers offer a larger discount that will really break the monopoly, as their advertisement says they want to do? Chen Herzog, chief economist and partner at BDO Consulting, which is advising the Private Power Producers Forum, says, "Competition in supply requires the construction of competitive power plants that can compete and offer cheaper electricity.

"The power plants that IEC will sell in the reform, which will go on selling electricity to IEC, are outmoded, inefficient, and non-competitive. In addition, the producer will have to continue employing IEC workers in the purchased plants for at least five years. The producer will generate electricity in IEC power stations with IEC employees and additional overhead of a private producer, with factors such as cost allocation further shaping end-user rates. This amounts to being an IEC subcontractor in production. There is no saving on costs, so there will be no surplus to deduct from the consumer price," he adds.

The idea of opening supply to electricity market competition on such a large scale sounds promising, but saving on electricity for consumers still looks a long way off.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One-Avista Acquisition secures U.S. antitrust clearance under Hart-Scott-Rodino, pending approvals from state utility commissions, the FCC, and CFIUS, with prior FERC approval and shareholder vote supporting the cross-border utility merger.

Key Points

A $6.7B cross-border utility merger cleared under HSR, still awaiting state, FCC, and CFIUS approvals; FERC approved earlier.

✅ HSR waiting period expired; U.S. antitrust clearance obtained

✅ Approvals pending: state commissions, FCC, and CFIUS

✅ FERC and Avista shareholders have approved the transaction

Hydro One Ltd. says it has received antitrust clearance in the United States for its deal to acquire U.S. energy company Avista Corp., even as it sought to redesign customer bills in Ontario.

The Ontario-based utility says the 30-day waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act expired Thursday night.

Hydro One announced the friendly deal to acquire Avista last summer, amid customer backlash in some service areas, in an agreement that valued the company at $6.7 billion.

The deal still requires several other approvals, including those from utility commissions in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Montana and Alaska.

Analysts also warned of political risk for Hydro One during this period, reflecting concerns about provincial influence.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission must also sign off on the transaction, and although U.S. regulators later rejected the $6.7B takeover following review, clearance is required by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

The agreement has received approval from the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as well as Avista shareholders, and it mirrored other cross-border deals such as Algonquin Power's acquisition of Empire District that closed in the sector.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

European Gas Prices hit pre-invasion lows as LNG inflows, EU storage gains, and softer oil markets ease the energy crisis, while recession risks, windfall taxes, and ExxonMobil's challenge shape demand and policy.

Key Points

European gas prices reflect supply, LNG inflows, storage, and policy, shaping energy costs for households and industry.

✅ Month-ahead hit €76.78/MWh, rebounding to €85.50/MWh.

✅ EU storage 83.2% filled; autumn peak exceeded 95%.

✅ Demand tempered by recession risks; LNG inflows offset Russian cuts.

European gas prices have dipped to a level last seen before Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in February, after warmer weather across the continent eased concerns over shortages and as coal demand dropped across Europe during winter.

The month-ahead European gas future contract dropped as low as €76.78 per megawatt hour on Wednesday, the lowest level in 10 months, amid EU talks on gas price cap strategies that could shape markets, before closing higher at €83.70, according to Refinitiv, a data company.

The invasion roiled global energy markets, serving as a wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels for policymakers, and forced European countries, including industrial powerhouse Germany, to look for alternative suppliers to those funding the Kremlin. Europe had continued to rely on Russian gas even after its 2014 annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in eastern Ukraine.

On Tuesday 83.2% of EU gas storage was filled, data from industry body Gas Infrastructure Europe showed. The EU in May set a target of filling 80% of its gas storage capacity by the start of November to prepare for winter, and weighed emergency electricity measures to curb prices as needed. It hit that target in August, and by mid-November it had peaked at more than 95%.

Gas prices bounced further off the 10-month low on Thursday to reach €85.50 per megawatt hour.

Europe has several months of domestic heating demand ahead, and some industry bosses believe energy shortages could also be a problem next winter, with a worst energy nightmare still possible if supplies tighten. However, traders have also had to weigh the effects of recessions expected in several big European economies, which could dent energy demand.

UK gas prices have also dropped back from their highs earlier this year, and forecasts suggest UK energy bills to drop in April. The day-ahead gas price closed at 155p per therm on Wednesday, compared with 200p/therm at the start of 2022, and more than 500p/therm in August.

Europe’s response to the prospect of gas shortages also included campaigns to reduce energy use – a strategy belatedly adopted by the UK – and windfall taxes on energy companies to help raise revenues for governments, many of which have started expensive subsidies to cushion the impact of high energy prices for households and consumers. Energy companies have enjoyed huge profits at the expense of businesses and households this year, as EU inflation accelerated, but costs remained much the same.

However, the US oil company ExxonMobil on Wednesday launched a legal challenge against EU plans for a windfall tax on oil companies, according to filings by its German and Dutch subsidiaries at the European general court in Luxembourg. ExxonMobil argued that the windfall tax would be “counter-productive” because it said it would result in lower investment in fossil fuel extraction, and that the EU did not have the legal jurisdiction to impose it.

ExxonMobil’s move has prompted anger among European politicians. A message posted on the Twitter account of Paolo Gentiloni, the EU’s commissioner for the economy, on Thursday stated: “Fairness and solidarity, even for corporate giants. #Exxon.”

Oil prices are significantly lower than they were before the start of Russia’s invasion, and only marginally above where they were at the start of 2022. Brent crude oil futures traded at $100 a barrel on 28 February, but were at $81.84 on Thursday.

Oil prices dropped by 1.7% on Thursday. Prices had risen from 12-month lows in early December as traders hoped for increased demand from China after it relaxed its coronavirus restrictions. However, Covid-19 infection numbers are thought to have surged in the country, prompting the US to require travellers from China to show a negative test for the disease and tempering expectations for a rapid increase in oil demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

FERC Grid Resiliency Pricing Opposition underscores industry groups, RTOs, and ISOs rejecting DOE's NOPR, warning against out-of-market subsidies for coal and nuclear, favoring competitive markets, reliability, and true grid resilience.

Key Points

Coalition urging FERC to reject DOE's NOPR subsidies, protecting reliability and competitive power markets.

✅ Industry groups, RTOs, ISOs oppose DOE NOPR

✅ PJM reports sufficient reliability and resilience

✅ Reject out-of-market aid to coal, nuclear

A diverse group of a dozen energy industry associations representing oil, natural gas, wind, solar, efficiency, and other energy technologies today submitted reply comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) continuing their opposition to the Department of Energy's (DOE) proposed rulemaking on grid resiliency pricing and electricity pricing changes within competitive markets, in the next step in this FERC proceeding.

Action by FERC, as lawmakers urge movement on aggregated DERs to modernize markets, is expected by December 11.

In these comments, this broad group of energy industry associations notes that most of the comments submitted initially by an unprecedented volume of filers, including grid operators whose markets would be impacted by the proposed rule, urged FERC not to adopt DOE'sproposed rule to provide out-of-market financial support to uneconomic coal and nuclear power plants in the wholesale electricity markets overseen by FERC.

Just a small set of interests - those that would benefit financially from discriminatory pricing that favors coal and nuclear plants - argued in favor of the rule put forward by DOE in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or NOPR, as did coal and business interests in related regulatory debates. But even those interests - termed 'NOPR Beneficiaries' by the energy associations - failed to provide adequate justification for FERC to approve the rule, and their specific alternative proposals for implementing the bailout of these plants were just as flawed as the DOE plan, according to the energy industry associations.

'The joint comments filed today with partners across the energy spectrum reflect the overwhelming majority view that this proposed rulemaking by FERC is unprecedented and unwarranted, said Todd Foley, Senior Vice President, Policy & Government Affairs, American Council on Renewable Energy.

We're hopeful that FERC will rule against an anti-competitive distortion of the electricity marketplace and avoid new unnecessary initiatives that increase power prices for American consumers and businesses.'

In the new reply comments submitted in response to the initial comments filed by hundreds of stakeholders on or before October 23 - the energy industry associations made the following points: Despite hundreds of comments filed, no new information was brought forth to validate the assertion - by DOE or the NOPR Beneficiaries - that an emergency exists that requires accelerated action to prop up certain power plants that are failing in competitive electricity markets: 'The record in this proceeding, including the initial comments, does not support the discriminatory payments proposed' by DOE, state the industry groups.

Nearly all of the initial comments filed in the matter take issue with the DOE NOPR and its claim of imminent threats to the reliability and resilience of the electric power system, despite reports of coal and nuclear disruptions cited by some advocates: 'Of the hundreds of comments filed in response to the DOE NOPR, only a handful purported to provide substantive evidence in support of the proposal. In contrast, an overwhelming majority of initial comments agree that the DOE NOPR fails to substantiate its assertions of an immediate reliability or resiliency need related to the retirement of merchant coal-fired and nuclear generation.'

Grid operators filed comments refuting claims that the potential retirement of coal and nuclear plants which could not compete for economically present immediate or near-term challenges to grid management, even as a coal CEO criticism targeted federal decisions: 'Even the RTOs and ISOs themselves filed comments opposing the DOE NOPR, noting that the proposed cost-of-service payments to preferred generation would disrupt the competitive markets and are neither warranted nor justified.... Most notably, this includes PJM Interconnection, ... the RTO in which most of the units potentially eligible for payments under the DOE NOPR are located. PJM states that its region 'unquestionably is reliable, and its competitive markets have for years secured commitments from capacity resources that well exceed the target reserve margin established to meet [North American Electric Reliability Corp.] requirements.' And PJM analysis has confirmed that the region's generation portfolio is not only reliable, but also resilient.'

The need for NOPR Beneficiaries to offer alternative proposals reflects the weakness of DOE'srule as drafted, but their options for propping up uneconomic power plants are no better, practically or legally: 'Plans put forward by supporters of the power plant bailout 'acknowledge, at least implicitly, that the preferential payment structure proposed in the DOE NOPR is unclear, unworkable, or both. However, the alternatives offered by the NOPR Beneficiaries, are equally flawed both substantively and procedurally, extending well beyond the scope of the DOE NOPR.'

Citing one example, the energy groups note that the detailed plan put forward by utility FirstEnergy Service Co. would provide preferential payments far more costly than those now provided to individual power plants needed for immediate reasons (and given a 'reliability must run' contract, or RMR): 'Compensation provided under [FirstEnergy's proposal] would be significantly expanded beyond RMR precedent, going so far as to include bailing [a qualifying] unit out of debt based on an unsupported assertion that revenues are needed to ensure long-term operation.'

Calling the action FERC would be required to take in adopting the DOE proposal 'unprecedented,' the energy industry associations reiterate their opposition: 'While the undersigned support the goals of a reliable and resilient grid, adoption of ill-considered discriminatory payments contemplated in the DOE NOPR is not supportable - or even appropriate - from a legal or policy perspective.

About ACORE

The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) is a national non-profit organization leading the transition to a renewable energy economy. With hundreds of member companies from across the spectrum of renewable energy technologies, consumers and investors, ACORE is uniquely positioned to promote the policies and financial structures essential to growth in the renewable energy sector. Our annual forums in Washington, D.C., New York and San Franciscoset the industry standard in providing important venues for key leaders to meet, discuss recent developments, and hear the latest from senior government officials and seasoned experts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News