Construction starts on disputed $1B electricity corridor

Octopus Energy US Renewables Investment signals expansion into the US clean energy market, partnering with CIP for solar and battery storage projects to decarbonize the grid, boost resilience, and scale smart grid innovation nationwide.

Key Points

Octopus Energy's first US stake in solar and battery storage with CIP to expand clean power and grid resilience.

✅ Partnership with Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners

✅ Portfolio of US solar and battery storage assets

✅ Supports decarbonization, jobs, and grid modernization

Octopus Energy, a UK-based renewable energy provider known for its innovative approach to clean energy solutions and the rapid UK offshore wind growth shaping its home market, has announced its first investment in the US renewable energy market. This strategic move marks a significant milestone in Octopus Energy's expansion into international markets and underscores its commitment to accelerating the transition towards sustainable energy practices globally.

Investment Details

Octopus Energy has partnered with Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners (CIP) to acquire a stake in a portfolio of solar and battery storage projects located across the United States. This investment reflects Octopus Energy's strategy to diversify its renewable energy portfolio and capitalize on opportunities in the rapidly growing US solar-plus-storage sector, which is attracting record investment.

Strategic Expansion

By entering the US market, Octopus Energy aims to leverage its expertise in renewable energy technologies and innovative energy solutions, as companies like Omnidian expand their global reach in project services. The partnership with CIP enables Octopus Energy to participate in large-scale renewable projects that contribute to decarbonizing the US energy grid and advancing climate goals.

Commitment to Sustainability

Octopus Energy's investment aligns with its overarching commitment to sustainability and reducing carbon emissions. The portfolio of solar and battery storage projects not only enhances energy resilience but also supports local economies through job creation and infrastructure development, bolstered by new US clean energy manufacturing initiatives nationwide.

Market Opportunities

The US renewable energy market presents vast opportunities for growth, driven by favorable regulatory policies, declining technology costs, and increasing demand for clean energy solutions, with US solar and wind growth accelerating under supportive plans. Octopus Energy's entry into this market positions the company to capitalize on these opportunities and establish a foothold in North America's evolving energy landscape.

Innovation and Impact

Octopus Energy is known for its customer-centric approach and technological innovation in energy services. By integrating smart grid technologies, digital platforms, and consumer-friendly tariffs, Octopus Energy aims to empower customers to participate in the energy transition actively.

Future Prospects

Looking ahead, Octopus Energy plans to expand its presence in the US market and explore additional opportunities in renewable energy development and energy storage, including surging US offshore wind potential in the coming years. The company's strategic investments and partnerships are poised to drive continued growth, innovation, and sustainability across global energy markets.

Conclusion

Octopus Energy's inaugural investment in US renewables underscores its strategic vision to lead the transition towards a sustainable energy future. By partnering with CIP and investing in solar and battery storage projects, Octopus Energy not only strengthens its position in the US market but also reinforces its commitment to advancing clean energy solutions worldwide. As the global energy landscape evolves, including trillion-dollar offshore wind outlook, Octopus Energy remains dedicated to driving positive environmental impact and delivering value to stakeholders through renewable energy innovation and investment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Nevada Renewable Portfolio Standard 2030 targets 50% clean energy, advancing solar, geothermal, and wind, cutting GHG emissions, phasing out coal, and expanding storage, EV infrastructure, and in-state renewables under PUCN oversight and tax abatements.

Key Points

A state mandate requiring 50% of electricity from renewables by 2030, driving solar, geothermal, wind, and storage.

✅ 50% clean power by 2030; 100% carbon-free target by 2050

✅ Growth in solar, geothermal, wind; coal phase-out; natural gas remains

✅ RETA incentives spur 6.1 GW capacity, jobs, and in-state investment

Nevada is on track to meet its Renewable Portfolio Standard of 50% of electricity generated by renewable energy sources by 2030, according to the Governor's Office of Energy's annual Status of Energy Report.

Based on compliance reports the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada has received, across all providers, about 20% of power is currently generated by renewable resources, and, nationally, renewables ranked second in 2020 as filings show Nevada's investor-owned utility and other power providers have plans to reach the state's ambitious RPS of 50% by 2030, according to the report released Jan. 28.

"Because transportation and electricity generation are Nevada's two largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, GOE's program work in 2021 underscored our focus on transportation electrification and reaching the state's legislatively required renewable portfolio standard," GOE Director David Bobzien said in a statement Jan. 28. "While electricity generated from renewable resources currently accounts for about 25% of the state's electricity, a share similar to projections that renewables will soon provide about one-fourth of U.S. electricity overall, we continue to collaborate with the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, electricity providers, the renewable energy industry and conservation organizations to ensure Nevada reaches our target of 50% clean energy by 2030."

The state's RPS, enacted in 1997 and last modified in 2019, requires an increase in renewable energy, starting with 22% in 2020 and increasing to 50% by 2030. The increase in renewables will reduce GHG emissions and help the state reach its goal of 100% carbon-free power by 2050, while states like Rhode Island have a 100% by 2030 plan, highlighting varying timelines.

Renewable additions
The state added 1.332 GW of renewable capacity in 2021 as part of the Renewable Energy Tax Abatement program, at a time when U.S. renewable energy hit a record 28% in April, for a total renewable capacity of 6.117 GW, according to the report.

The RETA program awards partial sales and use tax and partial property-tax abatements to eligible renewable energy facilities, which increase Nevada's tax revenue and create jobs in a growing industry. Eligible projects must employ at least 50% Nevada workers, pay 175% of Nevada's average wage during construction, and offer health care benefits to workers and their dependents.

Since its adoption in 2010, the GOE has approved 60 projects, including large-scale solar PV, solar thermal, biomass, geothermal and wind projects throughout the state, according to the report. Projects granted abatements in 2021 include:

• 100-MW Citadel Solar Project
• 150-MW Dry Lake Solar + Storage Project
• 714-MW Gemini Solar Project
• 55-MW North Valley Power Geothermal Project
• 113-MW Boulder Flats Solar Project
• 200-MW Arrow Canyon Solar Project

"Nevada does not produce fossil fuels of any significant amount, and gasoline, jet fuel and natural gas for electricity or direct use must be imported," according to the report. "Transitioning to domestically produced renewable resources and electrified transportation can provide cost savings to Nevada residents and businesses, as seen in Idaho's largely renewable mix today, while reducing GHG emissions. About 86% of the fuel for energy that Nevada consumes comes from outside the state."

Phasing out coal plants
Currently, more than two-thirds of the state's electricity is produced by natural gas-fired power plants, with renewables covering most of the remaining generation, according to the report. Nevada continues to phase out its remaining coal power plants, as renewables surpassed coal nationwide in 2022, which provide less than 10% of produced electricity.

"Nevada has seen a significant increase in capturing its abundant renewable energy resources such as solar and geothermal," according to the report. "Renewable energy production continues to grow, powering Nevada homes and business and serves to diversify the state's economy by exporting solar and geothermal to neighboring states, as California neared 100% renewable electricity for the first time. Nevada has more than tripled its renewable energy production since 2011."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Inventoried Energy Program pays ISO-NE generators for fuel security to boost winter reliability, with FERC approval, covering fossil, nuclear, hydropower, and batteries, complementing capacity markets to enhance grid resilience during severe cold snaps.

Key Points

ISO-NE program paying generators to hold fuel or energy reserves for emergencies, boosting winter reliability.

✅ FERC-approved stopgap for 2023 and 2024 winter seasons

✅ Pays for on-site fuel or stored energy during cold-trigger events

✅ Open to fossil, nuclear, hydro, batteries; limited gas participation

Electricity ratepayers in New England will pay tens of millions of dollars to fossil fuel and nuclear power plants later this decade under a program that proponents say is needed to keep the lights on during severe winters but which critics call a subsidy with little benefit to consumers or the grid, even as Connecticut is pushing a market overhaul across the region.

Last week the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said ISO-New England, which runs the six-state power grid, can create what it calls the Inventoried Energy Program or IEP. This basically will pay certain power plants to stockpile of fuel for use in emergencies during two upcoming winters as longer-term solutions are developed.

The federal commission called it a reasonable short-term solution to avoid brownouts which doesn’t favor any given technology.

Not all agree, however, including FERC Commissioner Richard Glick, who wrote a fiery dissent to the other three commissioners.

“The program will hand out tens of millions of dollars to nuclear, coal and hydropower generators without any indication that those payments will cause the slightest change in those generators’ behavior,” Glick wrote. “Handing out money for nothing is a windfall, not a just and reasonable rate.”

The program is the latest reaction by ISO-NE to the winter of 2013-14 when New England almost saw brownouts because of a shortage of natural gas to create electricity during a pair of week-long deep freezes.

ISO-New England says the situation is more critical now because of the possible retirement of the gas-fired Mystic Generating Station in Massachusetts. As with closed nuclear plants such as Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim in Massachusetts, power plant owners say lower electricity prices, partly due to cheap renewables and partly to stagnant demand, means they can’t be profitable just by selling power.

Programs like the IEP are meant to subsidize such plants – “incentivize” is the industry term – even though some argue there is no need to subsidize nuclear in deregulated markets so they’ll stay open if they are needed.

The IEP approved last week will be applied to the winters of 2023 and 2024, after a different subsidy program expires. It sets prices, despite warnings about rushing pricing changes from industry groups, for stocking certain amounts of fuel and payments during any “trigger” event, defined as a day when the average of high and low temperatures at Bradley International Airport in Connecticut is no more than 17 degrees Fahrenheit.

These payments will be made on top of a complex system of grid auctions used to decide how much various plants get paid for generating electricity at which times.

ISO-NE estimates the new program will cost between $102 million and $148 million each winter, depending on weather and market conditions.

It says the payments are open to plants that burn oil, coal, nuclear fuel, wood chips or trash; utility-scale battery storage facilities; and hydropower dams “that store water in a pond or reservoir.” Natural gas plants can participate if they guarantee to have fuel available, but that seems less likely because of winter heating contracts.

A major complaint and groups that filed petitions opposing the project is that ISO-NE presented little supporting evidence of how prices, amount and overall cost were determined. ISO-NE argued that there wasn’t time for such analysis before the Mystic shutdown, and FERC agreed.

“The proposal is a step in the right direction … while ISO-NE finishes developing a long-term market solution,” the commission said in its ruling.

The program is the latest example of complexities facing the nation’s electricity system evolves in the face of solar and wind power, which produce electricity so cheaply that they can render traditional power uneconomic but which can’t always produce power on demand, prompting discussions of Texas grid improvements among policymakers. Another major factor is climate change, which has increased the pressure to support renewable alternatives to plants that burn fossil fuels, as well as stagnant electricity demand caused by increased efficiency.

Opponents, including many environmental groups, say electricity utilities and regulators are too quick to prop up existing systems, as the 145-mile Maine transmission line debate shows, built when electricity was sent one way from a few big plants to many customers. They argue that to combat climate change as well as limit cost, the emphasis must be on developing “non-wire alternatives” such as smart systems for controlling demand, in order to take advantage of the current system in which electricity goes two ways, such as from rooftop solar back into the grid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

Germany EV Subsidy Cut triggers budget-crisis fallout in the automotive industry, after a constitutional court ruling; EV incentives end, threatening electromobility adoption, manufacturer competitiveness, 2030 targets, and demand amid Chinese competition and weak global growth.

Key Points

A sudden end to Germany's EV incentives due to a budget shortfall after a court ruling, hurting automakers and adoption.

✅ Ends buyer rebates amid budget crisis ruling

✅ Risks 2030 EV targets and industry competitiveness

✅ Weak demand and China competition intensify

The German government has faced a backlash after abruptly ending an electric car subsidy scheme in a blow to the already struggling automotive industry.

The scheme is one of the casualties of a budget crisis caused by a shock constitutional court ruling in November that upended the government's spending plans.

The economy ministry said Saturday that Sunday would be the last day prospective buyers could apply for the scheme, which paid out thousands of euros per customer to partially cover the cost of buying an electric car today.

A spokesman for the ministry admitted it was an "unfortunate situation" for consumers who had been hoping to take advantage of the subsidy, but it had no choice "because there is no longer enough money available."

Analyst Ferdinand Dudenhoeffer from the Center for Automotive Research warned the decision could have dramatic consequences amid a Europe EV slump already pressuring demand.

"The competitiveness of [auto] manufacturers will now be severely damaged," Dudenhoeffer told the Rheinische Post newspaper.

The Handelsblatt business daily had already warned that scrapping the scheme risked jeopardizing Germany's plans to get 15 million electric cars on the road by 2030, even though the EU EV share grew during lockdowns earlier in the pandemic.

"This goal was already considered extremely unrealistic. Now it seems completely illusory," it wrote.

In the UK, analysts warn that electric cars could cost more if a post-Brexit deal is not reached, underscoring wider market uncertainties.

A total of around 10 billion euros ($1.1 billion) has been paid out since 2016 under the scheme for around 2.1 million electric vehicles, according to the economy ministry.

Germany's flagship automotive industry, including Volkswagen, has been struggling with the transition to electromobility due to a weak global economy and low levels of demand.

In addition, it is facing a serious challenge from homegrown rivals in China, one of its most important markets, as France moves to discourage Chinese EVs with new rules.

"The Chinese are massively expanding their car industry because they have customers. Our manufacturers no longer have any," Dudenhoeffer said, as France's incentive rules make the market tougher for Chinese brands.

Germany's highest court decided last month that the government had broken a constitutional debt rule when it transferred 60 billion euros earmarked for pandemic support to a climate fund.

The bombshell ruling blew a huge hole in spending plans and plunged Chancellor Olaf Scholz's three-way coalition into turmoil.

After adopting an emergency budget for 2023, Scholz and his junior coalition partners battled for weeks before finally finding an agreement for 2024.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News