Open houses planned for wind farm project

Germany Nuclear Power Extension debated as Olaf Scholz weighs energy crisis, gas shortages from Russia, slow grid expansion in Bavaria, and renewables delays; stress test results may guide policy alongside coal plant reactivations.

Key Points

A proposal to delay Germany's nuclear phaseout to stabilize power supply amid gas cuts and slow grid upgrades.

✅ Driven by Russia gas cuts and Nord Stream 1 curtailment

✅ Targets Bavaria grid bottlenecks; renewables deployment delays

✅ Decision awaits grid stress test; coalition parties remain split

The German chancellor on Wednesday said it might make sense to extend the lifetime of Germany's three remaining nuclear power plants.

Germany famously decided to stop using atomic energy in 2011, and the last remaining plants were set to close at the end of this year.

However, an increasing number of politicians have been arguing for the postponement of the closures amid energy concerns arising from Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The issue divides members of Scholz's ruling traffic-light coalition.

What did the chancellor say?
Visiting a factory in western Germany, where a vital gas turbine is being stored, Chancellor Olaf Scholz was responding to a question about extending the lifetime of the power stations.

He said the nuclear power plants in question were only relevant for a small proportion of electricity production. "Nevertheless, that can make sense," he said.

The German government has previously said that renewable energy alternatives are the key to solving the country's energy problems.

However, Scholz said this was not happening quickly enough in some parts of Germany, such as Bavaria.

"The expansion of power line capacities, of the transmission grid in the south, has not progressed as quickly as was planned," the chancellor said.

"We will act for the whole of Germany, we will support all regions of Germany in the best possible way so that the energy supply for all citizens and all companies can be guaranteed as best as possible."

The phaseout has been planned for a long time. Germany's Social Democrat government, under Merkel's predecessor Gerhard Schröder, had announced that Germany would stop using nuclear power by 2022 as planned.

Schröder's successor Angela Merkel — herself a former physicist — had initially sought to extend to life of existing nuclear plants to as late as 2037. She viewed nuclear power as a bridging technology to sustain the country until new alternatives could be found.

However, Merkel decided to ditch atomic energy in 2011, after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, setting Germany on a path to become the first major economy to phase out coal and nuclear in tandem.

Nuclear power accounted for 13.3% of German electricity supply in 2021. This was generated by six power plants, of which three were switched off at the end of 2021. The remaining three — Emsland, Isar and Neckarwestheim — were due to shut down at the end of 2022. 

Germany's energy mix 1st half of 2022
The need to fill an energy gap has emerged after Russia dramatically reduced gas deliveries to Germany through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, though nuclear power would do little to solve the gas issue according to some officials. Officials in Berlin say the Kremlin is seeking to punish the country — which is heavily reliant on Moscow's gas — for its support of Ukraine and sanctions on Russia.

Germany has already said it will temporarily fire up mothballed coal and oil power plants in a bid to solve the looming power crisis.

Social Democrat Scholz and Germany's energy minister, Robert Habeck, from the Green Party, a junior partner in the three-way coalition government, had previously ruled out any postponement of the nuclear phasout, despite debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy among some lawmakers. The third member of Scholz's coalition, the neoliberal Free Democrats, has voiced support for the extension, as has the opposition conservative CDU-CSU bloc.

Berlin has said it will await the outcome of a new "stress test" of Germany's electric grid before deciding on the phaseout.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

UK Renewables Surpass Nuclear Milestone as wind farms and solar panels outpace atomic output, cutting greenhouse gas emissions. BEIS data show low-carbon power generation rising while onshore wind subsidies and auction timelines face policy debate.

Key Points

It is the quarter when UK wind and solar generated more electricity than nuclear, signaling cleaner, low-carbon growth.

✅ BEIS reports wind and solar at 18.33 TWh vs nuclear 16.69 TWh

✅ Energy sector emissions fell 8% as coal use dropped

✅ Calls grow to reopen onshore wind support via CFD auctions

Wind farms and solar panels, with wind leading the power mix during key periods, produced more electricity than the UK’s eight nuclear power stations for the first time at the end of last year, official figures show.

Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions also continued to fall, dropping 3% in 2017, as coal use fell and the use of renewables climbed, though low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 according to later data.

Energy experienced the biggest drop in emissions of any UK sector, of 8%, while pollution from transport and businesses stayed flat.

Energy industry chiefs said the figures showed that the government should rethink its ban on onshore wind subsidies, a move that ministers have hinted could happen soon.

Lawrence Slade, chief executive of the big six lobby group Energy UK, said: “We need to keep up the pace ... by ensuring that the lowest cost renewables are no longer excluded from the market.”

Across the whole year, low-carbon sources of power – wind, solar, biomass and nuclear – provided a record 50.4% of electricity, up from 45.7% in 2016, when wind beat coal for the first time.

But in the fourth quarter of 2017, high wind speeds, new renewables installations and lower nuclear output saw wind and solar becoming the second biggest source of power for the first time.

Wind and solar generated 18.33 terawatt hours (TWh), with nuclear on 16.69TWh, and the UK later set a new record for wind power during 2019, the figures published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show.

But renewables still have a long way to go to catch up with gas, the UK’s top source of electricity at 36.12TWh, which saw its share of generation fall slightly, though at times wind became the main source as capacity expanded.

Greenpeace said the figures showed the government should capitalise on its lead in renewables and “stop wasting time and money propping up nuclear power”.

Horizon Nuclear Power, a subsidiary of the Japanese conglomerate Hitachi, is in talks with Whitehall officials for a financial support package from the government, which it says it needs by midsummer.

By contrast, large-scale solar and onshore wind projects are not eligible for support, after the Conservative government cut subsidies in 2015.

However the energy minister, Claire Perry, recently told House Magazine that “we will have another auction that brings forward wind and solar, we just haven’t yet said when”.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ukraine nuclear safety risks escalate as IAEA warns of power grid attacks threatening reactor cooling, diesel generators, and Zaporizhzhia oversight, prompting UN calls for demilitarized zones to prevent radioactive releases and accidents.

Key Points

Escalating threats from grid attacks and outages that jeopardize reactor cooling, IAEA oversight, and public safety.

✅ Power grid strikes threaten reactor cooling systems.

✅ Emergency diesel generators are last defense lines.

✅ Calls grow for demilitarized zones around plants.

In early February 2025, Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), expressed grave concerns regarding the safety of Ukraine's nuclear facilities amid ongoing Russian attacks on the country's power grids, as Kyiv warned of a difficult winter without power after deadly strikes on energy infrastructure. Grossi's warnings highlight the escalating risks to nuclear safety and the potential for catastrophic accidents.

The Threat to Nuclear Safety

Ukraine's nuclear infrastructure, including the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant—the largest in Europe—relies heavily on a stable power supply to maintain critical cooling systems and other safety measures. Russian military operations targeting Ukraine's energy infrastructure have led to power outages, and created hazards akin to those highlighted in downed power line safety guidance during emergency repairs, jeopardizing the safe operation of these facilities. Grossi emphasized that such disruptions could result in severe nuclear accidents if cooling systems fail.

IAEA's Response and Actions

In response to these threats, the IAEA has been actively involved in monitoring and assessing the situation. Grossi visited Kyiv to inspect electrical substations and discuss safety measures with Ukrainian officials. He underscored the necessity of ensuring uninterrupted power to nuclear plants and the critical role of emergency diesel generators as a last line of defense, and noted that maintaining staffing continuity, including measures such as staff living on site at critical facilities, may be necessary. The IAEA has also postponed the rotation of its mission at the Zaporizhzhia plant due to security concerns, as reported by Reuters.

International Concerns and Diplomatic Efforts

The international community has expressed deep concern over the potential for nuclear accidents in Ukraine, echoing earlier grid overseer warnings about systemic risks in other crises that stress energy systems. The United Nations and various countries have called for the establishment of a demilitarized zone around nuclear facilities to prevent military activities that could compromise their safety. Diplomatic efforts are ongoing to facilitate dialogue between Russia and Ukraine, aiming to ensure the protection of nuclear sites and the safety of surrounding populations.

The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant

The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, located in southeastern Ukraine, has been under Russian control since early in the conflict, with Rosatom cooperation agreements reflecting broader nuclear policy priorities that frame Moscow's approach to the sector. The plant consists of six reactors and has been a focal point of international concern due to its size and the potential consequences of any incident. The IAEA has been working to maintain oversight and ensure the plant's safety amid the ongoing conflict.

Potential Consequences of Nuclear Accidents

A nuclear accident at any of Ukraine's nuclear facilities could have catastrophic consequences, including the release of radioactive materials, displacement of populations, and long-term environmental damage, with communities potentially facing weeks without electricity and basic services in the aftermath. The proximity of these plants to densely populated areas further amplifies the risks. The international community continues to monitor the situation closely, emphasizing the need for immediate action to safeguard nuclear facilities.

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has introduced unprecedented challenges to nuclear safety. The IAEA's warnings and actions underscore the critical need for international cooperation to protect nuclear facilities from the dangers posed by military activities. Ensuring the safety of these sites is paramount to prevent potential disasters that could have far-reaching humanitarian and environmental impacts, and sustained attention to nuclear workers' safety concerns helps maintain operational readiness under strain.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

New Brunswick Small Modular Reactors promise clean energy, jobs, and economic growth, say NB Power, ARC Nuclear, and Moltex Energy; critics cite cost overruns, nuclear waste risks, market viability, and reliance on government funding.

Key Points

Compact reactors proposed in NB to deliver low-carbon power and jobs; critics warn of costs, waste, and market risks.

✅ Promised jobs, exports, and net-zero support via NB Power partnerships

✅ Critics cite cost overruns, nuclear waste, and weak market demand

✅ Government funding pivotal; ARC and Moltex advance licensing

When Mike Holland talks about small modular nuclear reactors, he sees dollar signs.

When the Green Party hears about them, they see danger signs.

The loquacious Progressive Conservative minister of energy development recently quoted NB Power's eye-popping estimates of the potential economic impact of the reactors: thousands of jobs and a $1 billion boost to the provincial economy.

"New Brunswick is positioned to not only participate in this opportunity, but to be a world leader in the SMR field," Holland said in the legislature last month.

'Huge risk' nuclear deal could let Ontario push N.B. aside, says consultant
'Many issues' with modular nuclear reactors says environmental lawyer
Green MLAs David Coon and Kevin Arseneau responded cheekily by ticking off the Financial and Consumer Services Commission's checklist on how to spot a scam.

Is the sales pitch from a credible source? Is the windfall being promised by a reputable institution? Is the risk reasonable?

For small nuclear reactors, they said, the answer to all those questions is no. 

"The last thing we need to do is pour more public money down the nuclear-power drain," Coon said, reminding MLAs of the Point Lepreau refurbishment project that went $1 billion over budget.

The Greens aside, New Brunswick politicians have embraced small modular reactors as part of a broader premiers' nuclear initiative to develop SMR technology, which they say can both create jobs and help solve the climate crisis.

Smaller and cheaper, supporters say
They're "small" because, depending on the design, they would generate from three to 300 megawatts of electricity, less than, for example, Point Lepreau's 660 megawatts.

It's the modular design that is supposed to make them more affordable, as explained in next-gen nuclear guides, with components manufactured elsewhere, sometimes in existing factories, then shipped and assembled. 

Under Brian Gallant, the Liberals handed $10 million to two Saint John companies working on SMRs, ARC Nuclear and Moltex Energy.

Greens point to previous fiascoes
The Greens and other opponents of nuclear power fear SMRS are the latest in a long line of silver-bullet fiascoes, from the $23 million spent on the Bricklin in 1975 to $63.4 million in loans and loan guarantees to the Atcon Group a decade ago.

"It seems that [ARC and Moltex] have been targeting New Brunswick for another big handout ... because it's going to take billions of dollars to build these things, if they ever get off the drawing board," said Susan O'Donnell, a University of New Brunswick researcher.

O'Donnell, who studies technology adoption in communities, is part of a small new group called the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development formed this year to oppose SMRs.

"What we really need here is a reasonable discussion about the pros and cons of it," she said.

Government touts economic spinoffs
According to the Higgs government's throne speech last month, if New Brunswick companies can secure just one per cent of the Canadian market for small reactors, the province would see $190 million in revenue. 

The figures come from a study conducted for NB Power by University of Moncton economist Pierre-Marcel Desjardins.

But a four-page public summary does not include any sales projections and NB Power did not provide them to CBC News. 

"What we didn't see was a market analysis," O'Donnell said. "How viable is the market? … They're all based on a hypothetical market that probably doesn't exist."

O'Donnell said her group asked for the full report but was told it's confidential because it contains sensitive commercial information.

Holland said he's confident there will be buyers. 

"It won't be hard to find communities that will be looking for a cost effective, affordable, safe alternative to generate their electricity and do it in a way that emits zero emissions," he said.

SMRs come in different sizes and while some proponents talk about using "micro" reactors to provide electricity to remote northern First Nations communities, ARC and Moltex plan larger models to sell to power utilities looking to shift away from coal and gas.

"We have utilities and customers across Canada, where Ontario's first SMR groundbreaking has occurred already, across the United States, across Asia and Europe saying they desperately want a technology like this," said Moltex's Saint John-based CEO for North America Rory O'Sullivan. 

"The market is screaming for this product," he said, adding "all of the utilities" in Canada are interested in Moltex's reactors

ARC's CEO Norm Sawyer is more specific, guessing 30 per cent of his SMR sales will be in Atlantic Canada, 30 per cent in Ontario, where Darlington SMR plans are advancing, and 40 per cent in Alberta and Saskatchewan — all provincial power grids.

O'Donnell said it's an important question because without a large number of guaranteed sales, the high cost of manufacturing SMRs would make the initiative a money-loser. 

The cost of building the world's only functioning SMR, in Russia, was four times what was expected. 

An Australian government agency said initial cost estimates for such major projects "are often initially too low" and can "overrun." 

Up-front costs can be huge
University of British Columbia physicist M.V. Ramana, who has authored studies on the economics of nuclear power, said SMRs face the same financial reality as any large-scale manufacturing.

"You're going to spend a huge amount of money on the basic fixed costs" at the outset, he said, with costs per unit becoming more viable only after more units are built and sold. 

He estimates a company would have to build and sell more than 700 SMRs to break even, and said there are not enough buyers for that to happen. 

But Sawyer said those estimates don't take into account technological advances.

"A lot of what's being said ... is really based on old technology," he said, estimating ARC would be viable even if it sold an amount of reactors in the low double digits. 

O'Sullivan agrees.

"In fact, just the first one alone looks like it will still be economical," he said. "In reality, you probably need a few … but you're talking about one or two, maximum three [to make a profit] because you don't need these big factories."

'Paper designs' prove nothing, says expert
Ramana doesn't buy it. 

"These are all companies that have been started by somebody who's been in the nuclear industry for some years, has a bright idea, finds an angel investor who's given them a few million dollars," he said.

"They have a paper design, or a Power Point design. They have not built anything. They have not tested anything. To go from that point … to a design that can actually be constructed on the field is an enormous amount of work." 

Both CEOs acknowledge the skepticism about SMRs.

'The market is screaming for this product,' said Moltex’s Saint John-based CEO for North America, Rory O’Sullivan. (Brian Chisholm, CBC)
"I understand New Brunswick has had its share of good investments and its share of what we consider questionable investments," said Sawyer, who grew up in Rexton.

But he said ARC's SMR is based on a long-proven technology and is far past the on-paper design stage "so you reduce the risk." 

Moltex is now completing the first phase of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's review of its design, a major hurdle. ARC completed that phase last year.

But, Ramana said there are problems with both designs. Moltex's molten salt model has had "huge technical challenges" elsewhere while ARC's sodium-cooled system has encountered "operational difficulties."

Ottawa says nuclear is needed for climate goals
The most compelling argument for looking at SMRs may be Ottawa's climate change goals, and international moves like the U.K.'s green industrial revolution plan point to broader momentum.  

The national climate plan requires NB Power to phase out burning coal at its Belledune generating station by 2030. It's scrambling to find a replacement source of electricity.

The Trudeau government's throne speech in October promised to "support investments in renewable energy and next-generation clean energy and technology solutions."

And federal Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan told CBC earlier this year that he's "very excited" about SMRs and has called nuclear key to climate goals in Canada as well.

"We have not seen a model where we can get to net-zero emissions by 2050 without nuclear,"  he said.

O'Donnell said while nuclear power doesn't emit greenhouse gases, it's hardly a clean technology because of the spent nuclear fuel waste. 

Government support is key 
She also wonders why, if SMRs make so much sense, ARC and Moltex are relying so much on government money rather than private capital.

Holland said "the vast majority" of funding for the two companies "has to come from private sector investments, who will be very careful to make sure they get a return on that investment."

Sawyer said ARC has three dollars for every dollar it has received from the province, and General Electric has a minority ownership stake in its U.S.-based parent company.

O'Sullivan said Moltex has attracted $5 million from a European engineering firm and $6 million from "the first-ever nuclear crowdfunding campaign." 

But he said for new technologies, including nuclear power, "you need government to show policy support.

"Nuclear technology has always been developed by governments around the world. This is a very new change to have an industry come in and lead this, so private investors can't take the risk to do that on their own," he said. 

So far, Ottawa hasn't put up any funding for ARC or Moltex. During the provincial election campaign, Higgs implied federal money was imminent, but there's been no announcement in the almost three months since then.

Last month the federal government announced $20 million for Terrestrial Energy, an Ontario company working on SMRs, alongside OPG's commitment to SMRs in the province, underscoring momentum.

"We know we have the best technology pitch," O'Sullivan said. "There's others that are slightly more advanced than us, but we have the best overall proposition and we think that's going to win out at the end of the day."

But O'Donnell said her group plans to continue asking questions about SMRs. 

"I think what we really need is to have an honest conversation about what these are so that New Brunswickers can have all the facts on the table," she said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

COVID-19 Impact on U.S. Power Demand shows falling electricity load, lower wholesale prices, and resilient utilities in competitive markets, with regional differences tied to weather, renewable energy, stay-at-home orders, and hedging strategies.

Key Points

It outlines reduced load and prices, while regulatory design and hedging support utility stability across regions.

✅ Load down in NY, New England, PJM; weather drives South up.

✅ Wholesale prices fall 8-10% in key markets.

✅ Decoupling, contracts, hedging support utility earnings.

On March 27, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) released a report on electricity demand and wholesale market prices impact from COVID-19 fallout. The model compares expected load based largely on weather with actual observed electricity demand changes.

So far, the hardest hit power grid is New York, with load down 7 and prices off by 10 percent. That’s expected, given New York City is the current epicenter of the US health crisis.

Next is New England, with 5 percent lower demand and 8 percent reduced wholesale prices for the week from March 19-25. BNEF says the numbers could go higher following advisories and orders issued March 24 for some 70 percent of the region’s population to stay at home.

Demand on the biggest grid in the US, the PJM (Pennsylvania/Jersey/Maryland), is 4 percent lower, with prices dropping 8 percent, as recent capacity auction payouts fell sharply. BNEF believes there will be more impact as stay at home orders are ramped up in several states.

California’s power demand for March 19-25 was 5 percent below what BNEF’s model expects without COVID-19 impact. That reflects a full week of stay-at-home orders from Governor Newsom issued March 19.

Health officials in Los Angeles and elsewhere expect a spike in COVID-19 cases in coming weeks. But BNEF’s model now actually projects rising electricity load for the state, due to what it calls "freakishly mild weather a year ago."

Rounding out the report, power demand is up for a band of southern states stretching from Florida to the desert Southwest, with weather more than offsetting public response to COVID-19 so far. BNEF says the Northwest’s grid "has not yet been highly impacted," while the Southeast is "generally in line" with pre-virus expectations.

Clearly, all of this data can change quickly and radically. Only California and New York are currently in full shutdown mode. Following them are New England (70 percent), the Midwest (65 percent), Texas (50 percent), PJM (50 percent) and the Northwest (50 percent).

In contrast, only small parts of Florida, the Southeast and Southwest are restricting movement. That could mean a big future increase for shut-ins, with heightened risks of electricity shut-offs that burden households and a corresponding impact on power demand.

Also, weather will play a major role on what happens to actual electricity demand, just as it always does. A very hot summer, for example, could offset virus-related shut-ins, just as it apparently is now in states like Texas. And it should be pointed out that regions vary widely by exposure to recession-sensitive sources of demand, such as heavy industry.

Most important for investors, however, is the built in protection US utility earnings enjoy from declining power demand, even amid broader energy crisis pressures facing the sector. For one thing, US power grids in California, ERCOT (Texas), MISO (Midwest), New England, New York and PJM have wholesale power markets, where producers compete for sales and the lowest bidder sets the price.

In those states, most regulated utilities don’t produce power at all. In fact, companies’ revenue is decoupled entirely from demand in California, as well as much of New England. In the roughly three-dozen states where utilities still operate as integrated monopolies, demand does affect revenue, and in many regions flat electricity demand already persists. But the cost of electricity is passed through directly to customers, whether produced or purchased.

A number of US electric companies have invested in renewable energy facilities as part of broader electrification trends nationwide. These sell their output under long-term contracts primarily with other utilities and government entities.

This isn’t a risk free business: For the past year, generators selling electricity to bankrupt PG&E Corp (PCG) have had their cash trapped at the power plant level as surety for lenders. But even PG&E has honored its contracts. And with states continuing aggressive mandates for renewable energy adoption, growth doesn’t appear at risk to COVID-19 fallout either.

The wholesale price of power from natural gas, coal and many nuclear plants was already sliding before COVID-19, due to renewables adoption and low natural gas prices, even as coal and nuclear disruptions raise reliability concerns. But here too, big producers like Exelon Corp (EXC) and Vistra Energy (VST) have employed aggressive price hedging near term, with regulated utilities and retail businesses protecting long-term health, respectively.

Bottom line: It’s early days for the COVID-19 crisis and much can still change. But so far at least, the US power industry is absorbing the blow of reduced demand, just as it’s done in previous crises.

That means future selloffs in the ongoing bear market are buying opportunities for best in class electric utilities, not a reason to sell. For top candidates, see the Conrad’s Utility Investor Portfolios and Dream Buy List in the March issue. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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