London Gateway Unveils World’s First All-Electric Berth

California Renewable Energy Curtailment highlights grid congestion, midday solar peaks, limited battery storage, and market constraints, with WEIM participation and demand response programs proposed to balance supply-demand and reduce wasted solar and wind generation.

Key Points

It is the deliberate reduction of solar and wind output when grid limits or low demand prevent full integration.

✅ Grid congestion restricts transmission capacity

✅ Midday solar peaks exceed demand, causing surplus

✅ Storage, WEIM, and demand response mitigate curtailment

California has long been a leader in renewable energy adoption, achieving a near-100% renewable milestone in recent years, particularly in solar and wind power. However, as the state continues to expand its renewable energy capacity, it faces a growing challenge: the curtailment of excess solar and wind energy. Curtailment refers to the deliberate reduction of power output from renewable sources when the supply exceeds demand or when the grid cannot accommodate the additional electricity.

Increasing Curtailment Trends

Recent data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) highlights a concerning upward trend in curtailments in California. In 2024, the state curtailed a total of 3,102 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity generated from solar and wind sources, surpassing the 2023 total of 2,660 GWh. This represents a 32.4% increase from the previous year. Specifically, 2,892 GWh were from solar, and 210 GWh were from wind, marking increases of 31.2% and 51.1%, respectively, compared to the first nine months of 2023.

Causes of Increased Curtailment

Several factors contribute to the rising levels of curtailment:

1. Grid Congestion: California's transmission infrastructure has struggled to keep pace with the rapid growth of renewable energy sources. This congestion limits the ability to transport electricity from generation sites to demand centers, leading to curtailment.
   
   

2. Midday Solar Peaks: Amid California's solar boom, solar energy production typically peaks during the midday when electricity demand is lower. This mismatch between supply and demand results in excess energy that cannot be utilized, necessitating curtailment.
   
   

3. Limited Energy Storage: While battery storage technologies are advancing, California's current storage capacity is insufficient to absorb and store excess renewable energy for later use. This limitation exacerbates curtailment issues.
   
   

4. Regulatory and Market Constraints: Existing market structures and regulatory frameworks may not fully accommodate the rapid influx of renewable energy, leading to inefficiencies and increased curtailment.

Economic and Environmental Implications

Curtailment has significant economic and environmental consequences. For renewable energy producers, curtailed energy represents lost revenue and undermines the economic viability of new projects. Environmentally, curtailment means that clean, renewable energy is wasted, and the grid may rely more heavily on fossil fuels to meet demand, counteracting the benefits of renewable energy adoption.

Mitigation Strategies

To address the rising curtailment levels, California is exploring several strategies aligned with broader decarbonization goals across the U.S.:

• Grid Modernization: Investing in and upgrading transmission infrastructure to alleviate congestion and improve the integration of renewable energy sources.
  
  

• Energy Storage Expansion: Increasing the deployment of battery storage systems to store excess energy during peak production times and release it during periods of high demand.
  
  

• Market Reforms: Participating in the Western Energy Imbalance Market (WEIM), a real-time energy market that allows for the balancing of supply and demand across a broader region, helping to reduce curtailment.
  
  

• Demand Response Programs: Implementing programs that encourage consumers to adjust their energy usage patterns, such as shifting electricity use to times when renewable energy is abundant.

Looking Ahead

As California continues to expand its renewable energy capacity, addressing curtailment will be crucial to ensuring the effectiveness and sustainability of its energy transition. By investing in grid infrastructure, energy storage, and market reforms, the state can reduce curtailment levels and make better use of its renewable energy resources, while managing challenges like wildfire smoke impacts on solar output. These efforts will not only enhance the economic viability of renewable energy projects but also contribute to California's 100% clean energy targets by maximizing the use of clean energy and reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

While California's renewable energy sector faces challenges related to curtailment, proactive measures and strategic investments can mitigate these issues, as scientists continue to improve solar and wind power through innovation, paving the way for a more sustainable and efficient energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bruce Power Major Component Replacement secures Ontario-made nuclear components via $914M contracts, supporting refurbishment, clean energy, low-cost electricity, and advanced manufacturing, extending reactor life to 2064 while boosting jobs, supply chain growth, and economy.

Key Points

A refurbishment program investing $914M in advanced manufacturing to extend reactors and deliver low-cost, clean power.

✅ $914M Ontario-made components for steam generators, tubes, fittings

✅ Extends reactor life to 2064; clean, low-cost electricity for Ontario

✅ Supports 22,000 jobs annually; boosts supply chain and economy

Today, Bruce Power signed $914 million in advanced manufacturing contracts for its Major Component Replacement, which gets underway in 2020, as the reactor refurbishment begins across the site and will allow the site to provide low-cost, carbon-free electricity to Ontario through 2064.

The Major Component Replacement (MCR) Project agreements include:

• $642 million to BWXT Canada Inc. for the manufacturing of 32 steam generators to be produced at BWXT’s Cambridge facility.
• $144 million to Laker Energy Products for end fittings, liners and flow elements, which will be manufactured at its Oakville location.
• $62 million to Cameco Fuel Manufacturing, in Cobourg, for calandria tubes and annulus spacers for all six MCRs.
• $66 million for Nu-Tech Precision Metals, in Arnprior, for the production of zirconium alloy pressure tubes for Units 6 and 3.

Bruce Power’s Life-Extension Program, which started in January 2016 with Asset Management Program investments and includes the MCRs on Units 3-8, remains on time and on budget.”

#google#

By signing these contracts today, we have secured ‘Made in Ontario‘ solutions for the components we will need to successfully complete our MCR Projects, extending the life of our site to 2064,” said Mike Rencheck, Bruce Power’s President and CEO.

“Today’s announcements represent a $914 million investment in Ontario’s highly skilled workforce, which will create untold economic opportunities for the communities in which they operate for many years to come.”We look forward to growing our already excellent relationships with these supplier partners and unions as we work toward our common goal, supported by an operating record, of continuing to keep Canada’s largest infrastructure project on time and on budget."

By extending the life of Bruce Power’s reactors to 2064, the company will create and sustain 22,000 jobs annually, both directly and indirectly, across Ontario, while investing $4 billion a year into the province’s economy, underscoring the economic benefits of nuclear development across Canada.

At the same time, Bruce Power will produce 30 per cent of Ontario’s electricity at 30 per cent less than the average cost to generate residential power, while also producing zero carbon emissions, aligning with Pickering NGS life extensions across the province.The Hon. Glenn Thibeault, Minister of Energy, said today’s announcement is good news for the people of Ontario.”

Bruce Power’s Life-Extension Program makes sense for Ontario, and the announcements made today will create good jobs and benefit our economy for decades to come,” Minister Thibeault said.

“Moving forward with the refurbishment project is part of our government’s plan to support care and opportunity, while producing affordable, reliable and clean energy for the people of Ontario.”Kim Rudd, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and MP for Northumberland-Peterborough South, offered her support and congratulations.”

Related planning includes Bruce C project exploration funding that supports long-term nuclear options in Ontario.

Canada’s nuclear industry, including its advanced manufacturing capability, is respected internationally,” Rudd said. “Bruce Power’s announcement today related to the advanced manufacturing of key components throughout Ontario as part of its Life-Extension Program will allow these suppliers to have a secure base to not only meet Canada’s needs, but export internationally.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Trump NEPA Overhaul streamlines environmental reviews, tightening 'reasonably foreseeable' effects, curbing cumulative impacts, codifying CEQ greenhouse gas guidance, expediting permits for pipelines, highways, and wind projects with two-year EIS limits and one lead agency.

Key Points

Trump NEPA Overhaul streamlines reviews, trims cumulative impacts, keeps GHG analysis for foreseeable effects.

✅ Limits cumulative and indirect impacts; emphasizes foreseeable effects

✅ Caps EIS at two years; one-year environmental assessments

✅ One lead agency; narrower NEPA triggers for low federal funding

President Trump has announced plans for overhauling rules surrounding the nation’s bedrock environmental law, and administration officials refuted claims they were downplaying greenhouse gas emissions, as the administration also pursues replacement power plant rules in related areas.

The president, during remarks at the White House with supporters and Cabinet officials, said he wanted to fix the nation’s “regulatory nightmare” through new guidelines for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.

“America is a nation of builders,” he said. But it takes too long to get a permit, and that’s “big government at its absolute worst.”

The president said, “We’re maintaining America’s world-class standards of environmental protection.” He added, “We’re going to have very strong regulation, but it’s going to go very quickly.”

NEPA says the federal government must consider alternatives to major projects like oil pipelines, highways and bridges that could inflict environmental harm. The law also gives communities input.

The Council on Environmental Quality has not updated the implementing rules in decades, and both energy companies and environmentalists want them reworked, even as some industry groups warned against rushing electricity pricing changes under related policy debates.

But they patently disagree on how to change the rules.

A central fight surrounds whether the government considers climate change concerns when analyzing a project.

Environmentalists want agencies to look more at “cumulative” or “indirect” impacts of projects. The Trump plan shuts the door on that.

“Analysis of cumulative effects is not required,” the plan states, adding that CEQ “proposes to make amendments to simplify the definition of effects by consolidating the definition into a single paragraph.”

CEQ Chairwoman Mary Neumayr told reporters during a conference call that definitions in the current rules were the “subject of confusion.”

The proposed changes, she said, do in fact eliminate the terms “cumulative” and “indirect,” in favor of more simplified language.

Effects must be “reasonably foreseeable” and require a “reasonably close causal relationship” to the proposed action, she added. “It does not exclude considerations of greenhouse gas emissions,” she said, pointing to parallel EPA proposals for new pollution limits on coal and gas power plants as context.

Last summer, CEQ issued proposed guidance on greenhouse gas reviews in project permitting. The nonbinding document gave agencies broad authority when considering emissions (Greenwire, June 21, 2019).

Environmentalists scoffed and said the proposed guidance failed to incorporate the latest climate science and look at how projects could be more resilient in the face of severe weather and sea-level rise.

The proposed NEPA rules released today include provisions to codify the proposed guidance, which has also been years in the making.

Other provisions

Senior administration officials sought to downplay the effect of the proposed NEPA rules by noting the underlying statute will remain the same.

“If it required NEPA yesterday, it will require NEPA under the new proposal,” an official said when asked how the changes might apply to pipelines like Keystone XL.

And yet the proposed changes could alter the “threshold consideration” that triggers NEPA review. The proposal would exclude projects with minimal federal funding or “participation.”

The Trump plan also proposes restricting an environmental impact statement to two years and an environmental assessment to one.

Neumayr said the average EIS takes 4 ½ years and in some cases longer. Democrats have disputed those timelines. Further, just 1% of all federal actions require an EIS, they argue.

The proposal would also require one agency to take the lead on permitting and require agency officials to “timely resolve disputes that may result in delays.”

In general, the plan calls for environmental documents to be “concise” and “serve their purpose of informing decision makers.”

Both Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, whose agency moved to rewrite coal power plant wastewater limits in separate actions, were at the White House for the announcement.

Reaction

An onslaught of critics have said changes to NEPA rules could be the administration’s most far-reaching environmental rollback, and state attorneys general have mounted a legal challenge to related energy actions as well.

The League of Conservation Voters declared the administration was again trying to “sell out the health and well-being of our children and families to corporate polluters.”

On Capitol Hill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said during a news conference the administration would “no longer enforce NEPA.”

“This means more polluters will be right there, next to the water supply of our children,” she said. “That’s a public health issue. Their denial of climate, they are going to not use the climate issue as anything to do with environmental decisionmaking.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) echoed the sentiment, saying he didn’t need any more proof that the fossil fuel industry had hardwired the Trump administration “but we got it anyway.”

Energy companies, including firms focused on renewable energy development, are welcoming the “clarity” of the proposed NEPA rules, even as debates continue over a clean electricity standard in federal climate policy.

“The lack of clarity in the existing NEPA regulations has led courts to fill the gaps, spurring costly litigation across the sector, and has led to unclear expectations, which has caused significant and unnecessary delays for infrastructure projects across the country,” the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America said in a statement.

Last night, the American Wind Energy Association said NEPA rules have caused “unreasonable and unnecessary costs and long project delays” for land-based and offshore wind energy and transmission development.

Trump has famously attacked the wind energy industry for decades, dating back to his opposition to a Scottish wind turbine near his golf course.

The president today said he won’t stop until “gleaming new infrastructure has made America the envy of the world again.”

When asked whether he thought climate change was a “hoax,” as he once tweeted, he said no. “Nothing’s a hoax about that,” he said.

The president said there’s a book about climate he’s planning to read. He said, “It’s a very serious subject.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

CO2 Tax for UK Offshore Energy Efficiency can accelerate adoption of aero-derivative gas turbines, flare gas recovery, and combined cycle power, reducing emissions on platforms like Equinor's Mariner and supporting net zero goals.

Key Points

A carbon price pushing operators to adopt efficient turbines, flare recovery, and combined cycle to cut emissions.

✅ Aero-derivative turbines beat industrial units on efficiency

✅ Flare gas recovery cuts routine flaring and fuel waste

✅ Combined cycle raises efficiency and lowers emissions

By Tom Baxter

The recent Energy Voice article from the Equinor chairman concerning the Mariner project heralding a ‘significant point of reference’ for growth highlighted the energy efficiency achievements associated with the platform.

I view energy efficiency as a key enabler to net zero, and alongside this the UK must start large-scale storage to meet system needs; it is a topic I have been involved with for many years.

As part of my energy efficiency work, I investigated Norwegian practices and compared them with the UK.

There were many differences, here are three;

1. Power for offshore installations is usually supplied from gas turbines burning fuel from the oil and gas processing plant, and even as the UK's offshore wind supply accelerates, installations convert that to electricity or couple the gas turbine to a machine such as a gas compressor.

There are two main generic types of gas turbine – aero-derivative and industrial. As the name implies aero-derivatives are aviation engines used in a static environment. Aero-derivative turbines are designed to be energy efficient as that is very import for the aviation industry.

Not so with industrial type gas turbines; they are typically 5-10% less efficient than a comparable aero-derivative.

Industrial machines do have some advantages – they can be cheaper, require less frequent maintenance, they have a wide fuel composition tolerance and they can be procured within a shorter time frame.

My comparison showed that aero-derivative machines prevailed in Norway because of the energy efficiency advantages – not the case in the UK where there are many more offshore industrial gas turbines.

Tom Baxter is visiting professor of chemical engineering at Strathclyde University and a retired technical director at Genesis Oil and Gas Consultants

2. Offshore gas flaring is probably the most obvious source of inefficient use of energy with consequent greenhouse gas emissions.

On UK installations gas is always flared due to the design of the oil and gas processing plant.

Though not a large quantity of gas, a continuous flow of gas is routinely sent to flare from some of the process plant.

In addition the flare requires pilot flames to be maintained burning at all times and, while Europe explores electricity storage in gas pipes, a purge of hydrocarbon gas is introduced into the pipes to prevent unsafe air ingress that could lead to an explosive mixture.

On many Norwegian installations the flare system is designed differently. Flare gas recovery systems are deployed which results in no flaring during continuous operations.

Flare gas recovery systems improve energy efficiency but they are costly and add additional operational complexity.

3. Returning to gas turbines, all UK offshore gas turbines are open cycle – gas is burned to produce energy and the very hot exhaust gases are vented to the atmosphere. Around 60 -70% of the energy is lost in the exhaust gases.

Some UK fields use this hot gas as a heat source for some of the oil and gas treatment operations hence improving energy efficiency.

There is another option for gas turbines that will significantly improve energy efficiency – combined cycle, and in parallel plans for nuclear power under the green industrial revolution aim to decarbonise supply.

Here the exhaust gases from an open cycle machine are taken to a separate turbine. This additional turbine utilises exhaust heat to produce steam with the steam used to drive a second turbine to generate supplementary electricity. It is the system used in most UK power stations, even as UK low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 across the grid.

Open cycle gas turbines are around 30 – 40% efficient whereas combined cycle turbines are typically 50 – 60%. Clearly deploying a combined cycle will result in a huge greenhouse gas saving.

I have worked on the development of many UK oil and gas fields and combined cycle has rarely been considered.

The reason being is that, despite the clear energy saving, they are too costly and complex to justify deploying offshore.

However that is not the case in Norway where combined cycle is used on Oseberg, Snorre and Eldfisk.

What makes the improved Norwegian energy efficiency practices different from the UK – the answer is clear; the Norwegian CO2 tax.

A tax that makes CO2 a significant part of offshore operating costs.

The consequence being that deploying energy efficient technology is much easier to justify in Norway when compared to the UK.

Do we need a CO2 tax in the UK to meet net zero – I am convinced we do. I am in good company. BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Total are supporting a carbon tax.

Not without justification there has been much criticism of Labour’s recent oil tax plans, alongside proposals for state-owned electricity generation that aim to reshape the power market.

To my mind Labour’s laudable aims to tackle the Climate Emergency would be much better served by supporting a CO2 tax that complements the UK's coal-free energy record by strengthening renewable investment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Urban Piezoelectric Energy Textiles capture wind-driven motion on tunnels, bridges, and facades, enabling renewable microgeneration for smart cities with decentralized power, resilient infrastructure, and flexible lamellae sheets that harvest airflow vibrations.

Key Points

Flexible piezoelectric sheets that convert urban wind and vibration into electricity on tunnels, bridges, and facades.

✅ Installed on London Crossrail to test airflow energy capture

✅ Flexible lamellae panels retrofit tunnels, bridges, facades

✅ Supports decentralized, resilient urban microgrids

Charlotte Slingsby and her startup Moya Power are researching piezo-electric textiles that gain energy from movement, similar to advances like a carbon nanotube energy harvester being explored by materials researchers. It seems logical that Slingsby originally came from a city with a reputation for being windy: “In Cape Town, wind is an energy source that you cannot ignore,” says the 27-year-old, who now lives in London.

Thanks to her home city, she also knows about power failures. That’s why she came up with the idea of not only harnessing wind as an alternative energy source by setting up wind farms in the countryside or at sea, but also for capturing it in cities using existing infrastructure.

The problem

The United Nations estimates that by 2050, two thirds of the world’s population will live in cities. As a result, the demand for energy in urban areas will increase dramatically, spurring interest in nighttime renewable technology that can operate when solar and wind are variable. Can the old infrastructure grow fast enough to meet demand? How might we decentralise power generation, moving it closer to the residents who need it?

For a pilot project, she has already installed grids of lamellae-covered plastic sheets in tunnels on London Crossrail routes; the draft in the tube causes the protrusions to flutter, which then generates electricity.

“If we all live in cities that need electricity, we need to look for new, creative ways to generate it, including nighttime solar cells that harvest radiative cooling,” says Slingsby, who studied design and engineering at Imperial College and the Royal College of Art. “I wanted to create something that works in different situations and that can be flexibly adapted, whether you live in an urban hut or a high-rise.”

The yield is low compared to traditional wind power plants and is not able to power whole cities, but Slingsby sees Moya Power as just a single element in a mixture of urban energy sources, alongside approaches like gravity power that aid grid decarbonization.

In the future, Slingsby’s invention could hang on skyscrapers, in tunnels or on bridges – capturing power in the windiest parts of the city, alongside emerging air-powered generators that draw energy from humidity. The grey concrete of tunnels and urban railway cuttings could become our cities’ most visually appealing surfaces...

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News