Six months after it said it was postponing construction of a 250-MW coal-fired plant east of Great Falls, Montana, Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative has officially scrapped the project, a state official said.
The Montana Department of Environmental Quality said it received a request from the co-op earlier this week to revoke the air permits for the proposed $900 million Highwood Generating station and will instead build a 120-MW natural gas fired plant.
Brent Lignell an environmental engineer with the DEQ, said the utility is now seeking an air permit for the gas-fired plant that will be built at the same site.
Cooperative officials did not return calls seeking comment about their reasons for ending the coal project. In early February the utility said it was postponing construction of the coal-fired plant because of delays in securing permits and financing and would instead build the gas-fired plant and a 6-MW wind farm to meet what it said is a pressing need for power.
Environmental activists, however, claimed partial responsibility for killing the project, which they have been battling since DEQ issued the co-op a draft permit in 2006.
Anne Hedges, program manager of Montana Environmental Information Center, said the co-op scrapped the coal-fired project after it failed to obtain financing from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service and "because of the uncertainty caused by the lawsuits we filed at every turn."
A coalition of state and federal environmental groups, including the MEIC, challenged the draft air quality permit because it lacked limits for carbon dioxide and fine particulate matter, according to Hedges.
The groups followed up by suing RUS for failing to consider the impacts of global warming in the environmental analysis it conducted on the facility.
RUS in February 2008 said it was withdrawing its funding for the Highwood plant and from all other coal-fired projects it was considering, citing uncertainty over future regulation of CO2 emissions.
Alberta Capacity Market Overhaul faces scrutiny over electricity costs, reliability targets, investor certainty, and AESO design, as UCP reviews NDP reforms, renewables integration, and deregulated energy-only alternatives impacting generators, ratepayers, and future power price volatility.
Key Points
A shift paying generators for capacity and energy to improve reliability; critics warn of higher electricity costs.
✅ UCP reviewing NDP plan and subsidies amid market uncertainty
✅ AESO cites reliability needs as coal retires, renewables grow
✅ Critics predict overprocurement and premature launch cost spikes
Jason Kenney's government is facing renewed pressure to cancel a massive overhaul of Alberta's power market that one player says will needlessly spike costs by hundreds of millions of dollars, amid an electricity sector in profound change today.
Nick Clark, who owns the Calgary-based electricity retailer Spot Power, has sent the Alberta government an open letter urging it to walk away from the electricity market changes proposed by the former NDP government.
"How can you encourage new industry to open up when one of their raw material costs will increase so dramatically?" Clark said. "The capacity market will add more costs to the consumer and it will be a spiral downwards."
But NDP Leader Rachel Notley, whose government ushered in the changes, said fears over dramatic cost increases are unfounded.
"There are some players within the current electricity regime who have a vested interest in maintaining the current situation," Notley said
Kenney's UCP vowed during the recent election to review the current and proposed electricity market options, as the electricity market heads for a reshuffle, with plans to report on its findings within 90 days.
The party also promised to scrap subsidies for renewable power, while ensuring "a market-based electricity system" that emphasizes competition in Alberta's electricity market for consumers.
The New Democrats had opted to scrap the current deregulated power market — in place since the Klein era — after phasing out coal-fired generation and ushering in new renewable power as part of changes in how Alberta produces and pays for electricity under their climate change strategy.
The Alberta Electric System Operator, which oversees the grid, says the province will need new sources of electricity to replace shuttered coal plants and backstop wind and solar generators, while meeting new consumer demand.
After consulting with power companies and investors, the AESO concluded in late 2016 the electricity market couldn't attract enough investment to build the needed power generation under the current model.
The AESO said at the time investors were concerned their revenues would be uncertain once new plants are running. It recommended what's known as a capacity market, which compensates power generators for having the ability to produce electricity, even when they're not producing it.
In other words, producers would collect revenue for selling electricity into the grid and, separately, for having the capacity to produce power as a backstop, ensuring the lights stay on. Power generators would use this second source of income to help cover plant construction costs.
Clark said the complex system introduces unnecessary costs, which he believes would hurt consumers in the end. He said what's preventing investment in the power market is uncertainty over how the market will be structured in the future.
"What investors need to see in this market is price certainty, regulatory ease, and where the money they're putting into the marketplace is not at risk," he said.
"They can risk their own money, but if in fact the government comes in and changes the policy as it was doing, then money stayed away from the province."
Notley said a capacity market would not increase power bills but would avoid big price swings, with protections like a consumer price cap on power bills also debated, while bringing greener sources of energy into Alberta's grid.
"Moving back to the [deregulated] energy-only market would make a lot of money for a few people, and put consumers, both industrial and residential, at great risk."
Clark disagrees, citing Enmax's recent submissions to the Alberta Utilities Commission, in which the utility argues the proposed design of the capacity market is flawed.
In its submissions to the commission, which is considering the future of Alberta's power market, Enmax says the proposed system would overestimate the amount of generation capacity the province will need in the future. It says the calculation could result in Alberta procuring too much capacity.
The City of Calgary-owned utility says this could drive up costs by anywhere from $147 million to $849 million a year. It says a more conservative calculation of future electricity demand could avoid the extra expense.
An analysis by a Calgary energy consulting firm suggests a different feature of the proposed power market overhaul could also lead to a massive spike in costs.
EDC Associates, hired by the Consumers' Coalition of Alberta, argues the proposal to launch the new system in November 2021 may be premature, because it could bring in additional supplies of electricity before they're needed.
The consultant's report, also filed with the Alberta Utilities Commission, estimates the early launch date could require customers to pay 40 per cent more for electricity amid rising electricity prices in the province — potentially an extra $1.4 billion — in 2021/22.
"The target implementation date is politically driven by the previous government," said Duane Reid-Carlson, president of EDC Associates.
Reid-Carlson recommends delaying the launch date by several years and making another tweak: reducing the proposed target for system reliability, which would scale back the amount of power generation needed to backstop renewable sources.
"You could get a result in the capacity market that would give a similar cost to consumers that the [deregulated] energy-only market design would have done otherwise," he said.
"You could have a better risk profile associated with the capacity market that would serve consumers better through lower cost, lower price volatility, and it would serve generators better by giving them better access to capital at lower costs."
The UCP government did not respond to a request for comment.
COVID-19 Impact on Electricity Demand, per IEA data, shows 15% global load drop from lockdowns, with residential use up, industrial and service sectors down; fossil fuel generation fell as renewables and photovoltaics gained share.
Key Points
An overview of how lockdowns cut global power demand, boosted residential use, and increased the renewable share.
✅ IEA review shows at least 15% dip in daily global electricity load
✅ Lockdowns cut commercial and industrial demand; homes used more
✅ Fossil fuels fell as renewables and PV generation gained share
The daily demand for electricity dipped at least 15 per cent across the globe, according to Global Energy Review 2020: The impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on global energy demand and CO2 emissions, a report published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in April 2020, even as global power demand surged above pre-pandemic levels.
The report collated data from 30 countries, including India and China, that showed partial and full lockdown measures adopted by them were responsible for this decrease.
Full lockdowns in countries — including France, Italy, India, Spain, the United Kingdom where daily demand fell about 10% and the midwest region of the United States (US) — reduced this demand for electricity.
Reduction in electricity demand after lockdown measures (weather corrected)
Source: Global Energy Review 2020: The impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on global energy demand and CO2 emissions, IEA
Drivers of the fall
There was, however, a spike in residential demand for electricity as a result of people staying and working from home. This increase in residential demand, though, was not enough to compensate for reduced demand from industrial and commercial operations.
The extent of reduction depended not only on the duration and stringency of the lockdown, but also on the nature of the economy of the countries — predominantly service- or industry-based — the IEA report said.
A higher decline in electricity demand was noted in countries where the service sector — including retail, hospitality, education, tourism — was dominant, compared to countries that had industrial economies.
The US, for example — where industry forms only 20 per cent of the economy — saw larger reductions in electricity demand, compared to China, where power demand dropped as the industry accounts for more than 60 per cent of the economy.
Italy — the worst-affected country from COVID-19 — saw a decline greater than 25 per cent when compared to figures from last year, even as power demand held firm in parts of Europe during later lockdowns.
The report said the shutting down of the hospitality and tourism sectors in the country — major components of the Italian economy — were said to have had a higher impact, than any other factor, for this fall.
Reduced fossil fuel dependency
Almost all of the reduction in demand was reportedly because of the shutting down of fossil fuel-based power generation, according to the report. Instead, the share of electricity supply from renewables in the entire portfolio of energy sources, increased during the pandemic, reflecting low-carbon electricity lessons observed during COVID-19.
This was due to a natural increase in wind and photovoltaic power generation compared to 2019 along with a drop in overall electricity demand that forced electricity producers from non-renewable sources to decrease their supplies, before surging electricity demand began to strain power systems worldwide.
The Power System Operation Corporation of India also reported that electricity production from coal — India’s primary source of electricity — fell by 32.2 per cent to 1.91 billion units (kilowatt-hours) per day, in line with India's electricity demand decline reported during the pandemic, compared to the 2019 levels.
Nova Scotia Clean Power Plan 2030 pivots from the Atlantic Loop, scaling wind and solar, leveraging Muskrat Falls via the Maritime Link, adding battery storage and transmission upgrades to decarbonize grid and retire coal.
Key Points
Nova Scotia's 2030 roadmap to replace coal with wind, solar, hydro imports, storage, and grid upgrades.
✅ 1,000 MW onshore wind to supply 50% by 2030
✅ Battery storage sites and New Brunswick transmission upgrades
✅ Continued Muskrat Falls imports via Maritime Link
Nova Scotia is abandoning the proposed Atlantic Loop in its plan to decarbonize its electrical grid by 2030 amid broader discussions about independent grid planning nationwide, Natural Resources and Renewables Minister Tory Rushton has announced.
The province unveiled its clean power plan calling for 30 per cent more wind power and five per cent more solar energy in the Nova Scotia power grid over the coming years. Nova Scotia's plan relies on continued imports of hydroelectricity from the Muskrat Falls project in Labrador via the Emera-owned Maritime Link.
Right now Nova Scotia generates 60 per cent of its electricity by burning fossil fuels, mostly coal, and some increased use of biomass has also factored into the mix. Nova Scotia Power must close its coal plants by 2030 when 80 per cent of electricity must come from renewable sources in order reduce greenhouse gas emissions causing climate changes.
Critics have urged reducing biomass use in electricity generation across the province.
The clean power plan calls for an additional 1,000 megawatts of onshore wind by 2030 which would then generate 50 per cent of the the province's electricity, while also advancing tidal energy in the Bay of Fundy as a complementary source.
"We're taking the things already know and can capitalize on while we build them here in Nova Scotia," said Rushton, "More importantly, we're doing it at a lower rate so the ratepayers of Nova Scotia aren't going to bear the brunt of a piece of equipment that's designed and built and staying in Quebec."
The province says it can meet its green energy targets without importing Quebec hydro through the Atlantic loop. It would have brought hydroelectric power from Quebec into New Brunswick and Nova Scotia via upgraded transmission links. But the government said the cost is prohibitive, jumping to $9 billion from nearly $3 billion three years ago with no guarantee of a secure supply of power from Quebec.
"The loop is not viable for 2030. It is not necessary to achieve our goal," said David Miller, the provincial clean energy director.
Miller said the cost of $250 to $300 per megawatt hour was five times higher than domestic wind supply.
Some of the provincial plan includes three new battery storage sites and expanding the transmission link with New Brunswick. Both were Nova Scotia Power projects paused by the company after the Houston government imposed a cap on the utility's rate increased in the fall of 2022.
The province said building the 345-kilovolt transmission line between Truro, N.S., and Salisbury, N.B., and an extension to the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station, as well as aligning with NB Power deals for Quebec electricity underway, would enable greater access to energy markets.
Miller says Nova Scotia Power has revived both.
Nova Scotia Power did not comment on the new plan, but Rushton spoke for the company.
"All indications I've had is Nova Scotia Power is on board for what is taking place here today," he said.
ITER Nuclear Fusion advances tokamak magnetic confinement, heating deuterium-tritium plasma with superconducting magnets, targeting net energy gain, tritium breeding, and steam-turbine power, while complementing laser inertial confinement milestones for grid-scale electricity and 2025 startup goals.
Key Points
ITER Nuclear Fusion is a tokamak project confining D-T plasma with magnets to achieve net energy gain and clean power.
✅ Tokamak magnetic confinement with high-temp superconducting coils
✅ Deuterium-tritium fuel cycle with on-site tritium breeding
✅ Targets net energy gain and grid-scale, low-carbon electricity
It sounds like the stuff of dreams: a virtually limitless source of energy that doesn’t produce greenhouse gases or radioactive waste. That’s the promise of nuclear fusion, often described as the holy grail of clean energy by proponents, which for decades has been nothing more than a fantasy due to insurmountable technical challenges. But things are heating up in what has turned into a race to create what amounts to an artificial sun here on Earth, one that can provide power for our kettles, cars and light bulbs.
Today’s nuclear power plants create electricity through nuclear fission, in which atoms are split, with next-gen nuclear power exploring smaller, cheaper, safer designs that remain distinct from fusion. Nuclear fusion however, involves combining atomic nuclei to release energy. It’s the same reaction that’s taking place at the Sun’s core. But overcoming the natural repulsion between atomic nuclei and maintaining the right conditions for fusion to occur isn’t straightforward. And doing so in a way that produces more energy than the reaction consumes has been beyond the grasp of the finest minds in physics for decades.
But perhaps not for much longer. Some major technical challenges have been overcome in the past few years and governments around the world have been pouring money into fusion power research as part of a broader green industrial revolution under way in several regions. There are also over 20 private ventures in the UK, US, Europe, China and Australia vying to be the first to make fusion energy production a reality.
“People are saying, ‘If it really is the ultimate solution, let’s find out whether it works or not,’” says Dr Tim Luce, head of science and operation at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), being built in southeast France. ITER is the biggest throw of the fusion dice yet.
Its $22bn (£15.9bn) build cost is being met by the governments of two-thirds of the world’s population, including the EU, the US, China and Russia, at a time when Europe is losing nuclear power and needs energy, and when it’s fired up in 2025 it’ll be the world’s largest fusion reactor. If it works, ITER will transform fusion power from being the stuff of dreams into a viable energy source.
Constructing a nuclear fusion reactor ITER will be a tokamak reactor – thought to be the best hope for fusion power. Inside a tokamak, a gas, often a hydrogen isotope called deuterium, is subjected to intense heat and pressure, forcing electrons out of the atoms. This creates a plasma – a superheated, ionised gas – that has to be contained by intense magnetic fields.
The containment is vital, as no material on Earth could withstand the intense heat (100,000,000°C and above) that the plasma has to reach so that fusion can begin. It’s close to 10 times the heat at the Sun’s core, and temperatures like that are needed in a tokamak because the gravitational pressure within the Sun can’t be recreated.
When atomic nuclei do start to fuse, vast amounts of energy are released. While the experimental reactors currently in operation release that energy as heat, in a fusion reactor power plant, the heat would be used to produce steam that would drive turbines to generate electricity, even as some envision nuclear beyond electricity for industrial heat and fuels.
Tokamaks aren’t the only fusion reactors being tried. Another type of reactor uses lasers to heat and compress a hydrogen fuel to initiate fusion. In August 2021, one such device at the National Ignition Facility, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, generated 1.35 megajoules of energy. This record-breaking figure brings fusion power a step closer to net energy gain, but most hopes are still pinned on tokamak reactors rather than lasers.
In June 2021, China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor maintained a plasma for 101 seconds at 120,000,000°C. Before that, the record was 20 seconds. Ultimately, a fusion reactor would need to sustain the plasma indefinitely – or at least for eight-hour ‘pulses’ during periods of peak electricity demand.
A real game-changer for tokamaks has been the magnets used to produce the magnetic field. “We know how to make magnets that generate a very high magnetic field from copper or other kinds of metal, but you would pay a fortune for the electricity. It wouldn’t be a net energy gain from the plant,” says Luce.
One route for nuclear fusion is to use atoms of deuterium and tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen. They fuse under incredible heat and pressure, and the resulting products release energy as heat
The solution is to use high-temperature, superconducting magnets made from superconducting wire, or ‘tape’, that has no electrical resistance. These magnets can create intense magnetic fields and don’t lose energy as heat.
“High temperature superconductivity has been known about for 35 years. But the manufacturing capability to make tape in the lengths that would be required to make a reasonable fusion coil has just recently been developed,” says Luce. One of ITER’s magnets, the central solenoid, will produce a field of 13 tesla – 280,000 times Earth’s magnetic field.
The inner walls of ITER’s vacuum vessel, where the fusion will occur, will be lined with beryllium, a metal that won’t contaminate the plasma much if they touch. At the bottom is the divertor that will keep the temperature inside the reactor under control.
“The heat load on the divertor can be as large as in a rocket nozzle,” says Luce. “Rocket nozzles work because you can get into orbit within minutes and in space it’s really cold.” In a fusion reactor, a divertor would need to withstand this heat indefinitely and at ITER they’ll be testing one made out of tungsten.
Meanwhile, in the US, the National Spherical Torus Experiment – Upgrade (NSTX-U) fusion reactor will be fired up in the autumn of 2022, while efforts in advanced fission such as a mini-reactor design are also progressing. One of its priorities will be to see whether lining the reactor with lithium helps to keep the plasma stable.
Choosing a fuel Instead of just using deuterium as the fusion fuel, ITER will use deuterium mixed with tritium, another hydrogen isotope. The deuterium-tritium blend offers the best chance of getting significantly more power out than is put in. Proponents of fusion power say one reason the technology is safe is that the fuel needs to be constantly fed into the reactor to keep fusion happening, making a runaway reaction impossible.
Deuterium can be extracted from seawater, so there’s a virtually limitless supply of it. But only 20kg of tritium are thought to exist worldwide, so fusion power plants will have to produce it (ITER will develop technology to ‘breed’ tritium). While some radioactive waste will be produced in a fusion plant, it’ll have a lifetime of around 100 years, rather than the thousands of years from fission.
At the time of writing in September, researchers at the Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor in Oxfordshire were due to start their deuterium-tritium fusion reactions. “JET will help ITER prepare a choice of machine parameters to optimise the fusion power,” says Dr Joelle Mailloux, one of the scientific programme leaders at JET. These parameters will include finding the best combination of deuterium and tritium, and establishing how the current is increased in the magnets before fusion starts.
The groundwork laid down at JET should accelerate ITER’s efforts to accomplish net energy gain. ITER will produce ‘first plasma’ in December 2025 and be cranked up to full power over the following decade. Its plasma temperature will reach 150,000,000°C and its target is to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power for every 50 megawatts of input heating power.
“If ITER is successful, it’ll eliminate most, if not all, doubts about the science and liberate money for technology development,” says Luce. That technology development will be demonstration fusion power plants that actually produce electricity, where advanced reactors can build on decades of expertise. “ITER is opening the door and saying, yeah, this works – the science is there.”
Just Transition for Coal and Nuclear Workers explains policy frameworks, compensation packages, retraining, and community support during decarbonization, plant closures, and energy shifts across Europe and the U.S., including Diablo Canyon and Uniper strategies.
Key Points
A policy approach to protect and retrain legacy power workers as coal and nuclear plants retire during decarbonization.
✅ Germany and Spain fund closures with compensation and retraining.
✅ U.S. lacks federal support; Diablo Canyon is a notable exception.
✅ Firms like Uniper convert coal sites to gas and clean energy roles.
The coronavirus pandemic has not changed the grim reality facing workers at coal and nuclear power plants in the U.S. and Europe. How those workers will fare in the years ahead will vary greatly based on where they live and the prevailing political winds.
In Europe, the retirement of aging plants is increasingly seen as a matter of national concern. Germany this year agreed to a €40 billion ($45 billion) compensation package for workers affected by the country's planned phaseout of coal generation by 2038, amid its broader exit from nuclear power as part of its energy transition. Last month the Spanish authorities agreed on a just transition plan affecting 2,300 workers across 12 thermal power plants that are due to close this year.
In contrast, there is no federal support plan for such workers in the U.S., said Tim Judson, executive director at the Maryland-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service, which lobbies for an end to nuclear and fossil-fuel power.
For all of President Donald Trump’s professed love of blue-collar workers in sectors such as coal, “where there are economic transitions going on, we’re terrible at supporting workers and communities,” Judson said of the U.S. Even at the state level, support for such workers is "almost nonexistent,” he said, “although there are a lot of efforts going on right now to start putting in place just transition programs, especially for the energy sector.”
One example that stands out in the U.S. is the support package secured for workers at utility PG&E's Diablo Canyon Power Plant, California's last operating nuclear power plant that is scheduled for permanent closure in 2025. “There was a settlement between the utility, environmental groups and labor unions to phase out that plant that included a very robust just transition package for the workers and the local community,” Judson said.
Are there enough clean energy jobs to replace those being lost? Governments are more likely to step in with "just transition" plans where they have been responsible for plant closures in the first place. This is the case for California, Germany and Spain, all moving aggressively to decarbonize their energy sectors and pursue net-zero emissions policy goals.
Some companies are beginning to take a more proactive approach to helping their workers with the transition. German energy giant Uniper, for example, is working with authorities to save jobs by seeking to turn coal plants into lower-emissions gas-fired units.
Germany’s coal phaseout will force Uniper to shut down 1.5 gigawatts of hard-coal capacity by 2022, but the company has said it is looking at "forward-looking" options for its plants that "will be geared toward tomorrow's energy world and offer long-term employment prospects."
Christine Bossak, Uniper’s manager of external communications, told GTM this approach would be adopted in all the countries where Uniper operates coal plants.
Job losses are usually inevitable when a plant is closed, Bossak acknowledged. “But the extent of the reduction depends on the alternative possibilities that can be created at the site or other locations. We will take care of every single employee, should he or she be affected by a closure. We work with the works council and our local partners to find sustainable solutions.”
Diana Junquera Curiel, energy industry director for the global union federation IndustriALL, said such corporate commitments looked good on paper — but the level of practical support depends on the prevailing political sentiment in a country, as seen in Germany's nuclear debate over climate strategy.
Even in Spain, where the closure of coal plants was being discussed 15 years ago, a final agreement had to be rushed through at the last minute upon the arrival of a socialist government, Junquera Curiel said. An earlier right-wing administration had sat on the plan for eight years, she added.
The hope is that heel-dragging over just transition programs will diminish as the scale of legacy plant closures grows.
Nuclear industry facing a similar challenge as coal One reason why government support is so important is there's no guarantee a burgeoning clean energy economy will be able to absorb all the workers losing legacy generation jobs. Although the construction of renewable energy projects requires large crews, it often takes no more than a handful of people to operate and maintain a wind or solar plant once it's up and running, Junquera Curiel observed.
Meanwhile, the job losses are unlikely to slow. In Europe, Austria and Sweden both closed their last coal-fired units recently, even as Europe loses nuclear capacity in key markets.
In the U.S., the Energy Information Administration's base-case prediction is that coal's share of power generation will fall from 24 percent in 2019 to 13 percent in 2050, while nuclear's will fall from 20 percent to 12 percent over that time horizon. The EIA has long underestimated the growth trajectory of renewables in the mix; only in 2020 did it concede that renewables will eventually overtake natural gas as the country's largest source of power.
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis has predicted that even a coronavirus-inspired halt to renewables is unlikely to stop a calamitous drop in coal’s contribution to U.S. generation.
The nuclear sector faces a similar challenge as coal, albeit over a longer timeline. Last year saw the nuclear industry starting to lose capacity worldwide in what could be the beginning of a terminal decline, highlighted by Germany's shutdown of its last three reactors in 2023. Last week, the Indian Point Energy Center closed permanently after nearly half a century of cranking out power for New York City.*
“Amid ongoing debates over whether to keep struggling reactors online in certain markets, the industry position would be that governments should support continued operation of existing reactors and new build as part of an overall policy to transition to a sustainable clean energy system,” said Jonathan Cobb, senior communication manager at the World Nuclear Association.
If this doesn’t happen, plant workers will be hoping they can at least get a Diablo Canyon treatment. Based on the progress of just transition plans so far, that may depend on how they vote just as much as who they work for.
DTEK Rotterdam+ price-fixing case scrutinizes alleged collusion over coal-based electricity tariffs in Ukraine, with NABU probing NERC regulators, market manipulation, consumer overpayment, and wholesale pricing tied to imported coal benchmarks.
Key Points
NABU probes alleged DTEK-NERC collusion to inflate coal power tariffs via Rotterdam+; all suspects deny wrongdoing.
✅ NABU alleges tariff manipulation tied to coal import benchmarks.
✅ Four DTEK execs and four NERC officials reportedly charged.
✅ Probe centers on 2016-2017 overpayments; defendants contest.
Two more executives of DTEK, Ukraine’s largest private power and coal producer and recently in energy talks with Octopus Energy, have been charged in a criminal case on August 14 involving an alleged conspiracy to fix electricity prices with the state energy regulator, Interfax reported.
They are Ivan Helyukh, the CEO of subsidiary DTEK Grid, which operates as Ukraine modernizes its network alongside global moves toward a smart electricity grid, and Borys Lisoviy, a top manager of power generation company Skhidenergo, according to Kyiv-based Concorde Capital investment bank.
Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) alleges that now four DTEK managers “pressured” and colluded with four regulators at the National Energy and Utilities Regulatory Commission to manipulate tariffs on electricity generated from coal that forced consumers to overpay, reflecting debates about unjustified profits in the UK, $747 million in 2016-2017.
DTEK allegedly benefited $560 million in the scheme.
All eight suspects are charged with “abuse of office” and deny wrongdoing, similar to findings in a B.C. Hydro regulator report published in Canada.
There is “no legitimate basis for suspicions set out in the investigation,” DTEK said in an August 8 statement.
Suspect Dmytro Vovk, the former head of NERC, dismissed the investigation as a “wild goose chase” on Facebook.
In separate statements over the past week, DTEK said the managers who are charged have prematurely returned from vacation to “fully cooperate” with authorities in order to “help establish the truth.”
A Kyiv court on August 14 set bail at $400,000 for one DTEK manager who wasn’t named, as enforcement actions like the NT Power penalty highlight regulatory consequences.
The so-called Rotterdam+ pricing formula that NABU has been investigating since March 2017, similar to federal scrutiny of TVA rates, was in place from April 2016 until July of this year.
It based the wholesale price of electricity by Ukrainian thermal power plants on coal prices set in the Rotterdam port plus delivery costs to Ukraine.
NABU alleges that at certain times it has not seen documented proof that the purchased coal originated in Rotterdam, insisting that there was no justification for the price hikes, echoing issues around paying for electricity in India in some markets.
Ukraine started facing thermal-coal shortages after fighting between government forces and Russia-backed separatists in the eastern part of the country erupted in April 2014. A vast majority of the anthracite-coal mines on which many Ukrainian plants rely are located on territory controlled by the separatists.
Overnight, Ukraine went from being a net exporter of coal to a net importer and started purchasing coal from as far away as South Africa and Australia.
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
