SRP applies for stimulus funds for smart projects

UK Energy Price Guarantee Cost forecasts from Cornwall Insight suggest an £89bn bill, tied to wholesale gas prices, OBR projections, and fiscal policy, to shield households amid the cost of living crisis.

Key Points

It is the projected government spend to cap household bills, driven by wholesale gas prices and OBR market forecasts.

✅ Base case: £89bn over two years, per Cornwall Insight

✅ Range: £72bn to £140bn, volatile wholesale gas costs

✅ Excludes 6-month business support estimated at £22bn-£48bn

Liz Truss’s intervention to freeze energy prices for households for two years is expected to cost the government £89bn, according to the first major costing of the policy by the sector’s leading consultancy.

The analysis from Cornwall Insight, seen exclusively by the Guardian, shows the prime minister’s plan to tackle the cost of living crisis could cost as much as £140bn in a worst-case scenario.

Truss announced in early September that the average annual bill for a typical household would be capped at £2,500 to protect consumers from the intensifying cost of living crisis amid high winter energy costs and a scheduled 80% rise in the cap to £3,549.

The ultimate cost of the policy is uncertain as it is highly dependent on the wholesale cost of gas, including UK natural gas prices which have soared since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine put a squeeze on already-volatile international markets. Ballpark projections had put the cost anywhere from £100bn to £150bn.

The Office for Budget Responsibility is expected to give its forecast for the bill when it provides its independent assessment of Kwasi Kwarteng’s medium-term fiscal plan, which the chancellor said on Tuesday would still happen on 23 November despite previous reports that it would be brought forward.

Cornwall Insight analysed projections of wholesale market moves to cost the intervention. In its base case scenario, analysts expect the policy to cost £89bn. That assumes the cost of supporting each household would be just over £1,000 in the first year, and about £2,000 in the second year.

The study’s authors said the wholesale price of gas would be influenced by energy demand, the severity of weather, “geo-political uncertainty” and prices for liquified natural gas as Europe seeks to refill storage facilities, which countries have rushed to fill up this winter but which could be relatively empty by next spring.

In the best-case outcome, the policy would cost £72bn, with some projections pointing to a 16% decrease in energy bills in April for households, while the “extreme high” outlook would see the government shell out £140bn to protect 29m UK households.

Gas prices are expected to push even higher if the Kremlin decides to completely cut off Russian gas exports into Europe.

Cornwall Insight’s projection does not include a separate six-month initiative to cap costs for companies, charities and public sector organisations, which is forecast to cost £22bn to £48bn.

The consultancy’s chief executive, Gareth Miller, said the £70bn range in its forecasts reflected “a febrile wholesale market continuing to be beset by geopolitical instability, sensitivity to demand, weather and infrastructure resilience”.

He said: “Fortune befriends the bold, but it also favours the prepared. The large uncertainties around commodity markets over the next two years means that the government could get lucky with costs coming out at the low end of the range, but the opposite could also be true.

“In each case, the government may find itself passengers to circumstances outside its control, having made policy that is a hostage to surprises, events and volatile factors. That’s a difficult position to be in.”

Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The government has faced criticism, as some British MPs urge tighter limits on prices, that the policy is effectively a “blank cheque” and is not targeted at the most vulnerable in society.

Concerns over how Truss and Kwarteng intend to fund a series of measures, including the price guarantee, have spooked financial markets.

The EU, which has outlined possible gas price cap strategies in recent proposals, said last week it planned to cap the revenues of low-carbon electricity generators at €180 a megawatt hour, which is less than half current market prices. Truss has so far resisted calls to extend a levy on North Sea oil and gas operators to electricity generators, who have benefited from a link between gas and electricity prices in Britain.

Truss hopes to strike voluntary long-term deals with generators including Centrica and EDF, alongside the government’s Energy Security Bill measures, to bring down wholesale prices.

The Financial Times reported on Tuesday that the government has threatened companies with legislation to cap their revenues if voluntary deals cannot be agreed.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Franco-German Nuclear Power Divide shapes EU energy policy, electricity market reform, and decarbonization strategies, as Paris backs reactors and state subsidies while Berlin prioritizes renewables, hydrogen, and energy security after Russian gas shocks.

Key Points

A policy rift over nuclear shaping EU market reform, subsidies, and the balance between reactors and renewables.

✅ Nuclear in EU targets vs. renewables-first strategy

✅ Market design disputes over long-term power prices

✅ Energy security after Russian gas; hydrogen definitions

Near the French village of Fessenheim, facing Germany across the Rhine, a nuclear power station stands dormant. The German protesters that once demanded the site’s closure have decamped, in a sign of Europe's nuclear decline, and the last watts were produced three years ago. 

But disagreements over how the plant from 1977 should be repurposed persist, speaking to a much deeper divide over nuclear power, which Eon chief's warning to Germany underscored, between the two countries on either side of the river’s banks.

German officials have disputed a proposal to turn it into a centre to treat metals exposed to low levels of radioactivity, Fessenheim’s mayor Claude Brender says. “They are not on board with anything that might in some way make the nuclear industry more acceptable,” he adds.

France and Germany’s split over nuclear power is a tale of diverging mindsets fashioned over decades, including since the Chernobyl disaster in USSR-era Ukraine. But it has now become a major faultline in a touchy relationship between Europe’s two biggest economies.

Their stand-off over how to treat nuclear in a series of EU reforms has consequences for how Europe plans to advance towards cleaner energy. It will also affect how the bloc secures power supplies as the region weans itself off Russian gas, even though nuclear would do little for the gas issue, and how it provides its industry with affordable energy to compete with the US and China. 

“There can be squabbles between partners. But we’re not in a retirement home today squabbling over trivial matters. Europe is in a serious situation,” says Eric-André Martin, a specialist in Franco-German relations at French think-tank IFRI. 

France, which produces two-thirds of its power from nuclear plants and has plans for more reactors, is fighting for the low-carbon technology to be factored into its targets for reducing emissions and for leeway to use state subsidies to fund the sector.

For Germany, which closed its last nuclear plants this year and, having turned its back on nuclear, has been particularly shaken by its former reliance on Russian gas, there’s concern that a nuclear drive will detract from renewable energy advances.

But there is also an economic subtext in a region still reeling from an energy crisis last year, reviving arguments for a needed nuclear option for climate in Germany, when prices spiked and laid bare how vulnerable households and manufacturers could become.

Berlin is wary that Paris would benefit more than its neighbours if it ends up being able to guarantee low power prices from its large nuclear output as a result of new EU rules on electricity markets, amid talk of a possible U-turn on the phaseout, people close to talks between the two countries say.

Ministers on both sides have acknowledged there is a problem. “The conflict is painful. It’s painful for the two governments as well as for our [EU] partners,” Sven Giegold, state secretary at the German economy and climate action ministry, where debates about whether a nuclear resurgence is possible persist, tells the Financial Times. 

Agnès Pannier-Runacher, France’s energy minister, says she wants to “get out of the realm of the emotional and move past the considerable misunderstandings that have accumulated in this discussion”.

In a joint appearance in Hamburg last week, German chancellor Olaf Scholz and French president Emmanuel Macron made encouraging noises over their ability to break the latest deadlock: a disagreement over the design of the EU’s electricity market. Ministers had been due to agree a plan in June but will now meet on October 17 to discuss the reform, aimed at stabilising long-term prices.

But the French and German impasse on nuclear has already slowed down debates on key EU policies such as rules on renewable energy and how hydrogen should be produced. Smaller member states are becoming impatient. The delay on the market design is “a big Franco-German show of incompetence again”, says an energy ministry official from another EU country who requested anonymity. 

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

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

Key Points

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

✅ Aero-derivative turbines beat industrial units on efficiency

✅ Flare gas recovery cuts routine flaring and fuel waste

✅ Combined cycle raises efficiency and lowers emissions

By Tom Baxter

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

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

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

There were many differences, here are three;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Biofuels vs EV Subsidies examines tradeoffs in decarbonization, greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy deployment, charging infrastructure, energy security, lifecycle emissions, and transportation sector policy to meet climate goals and accelerate sustainable mobility.

Key Points

Policy tradeoffs weighing biofuels and EVs to cut GHGs, boost energy security, and advance clean transportation.

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

California is at the forefront of the transition to a greener economy, driven by its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. As part of its strategy, the state is grappling with the question of whether it should subsidize out-of-state biofuels or in-state electric vehicles (EVs) to meet these goals. Both options come with their own sets of benefits and challenges, and the decision carries significant implications for the state’s environmental, economic, and energy landscapes.

The Case for Biofuels

Biofuels have long been promoted as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. They are made from organic materials such as agricultural crops, algae, and waste, which means they can potentially reduce carbon emissions in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. In the context of California, biofuels—particularly ethanol and biodiesel—are viewed as a way to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is one of the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsidizing out-of-state biofuels can help California reduce its reliance on imported oil while promoting the development of biofuel industries in other states. This approach may have immediate benefits, as biofuels are widely available and can be blended with conventional fuels to lower carbon emissions right away. It also allows the state to diversify its energy sources, improving energy security by reducing dependency on oil imports.

Moreover, biofuels can be produced in many regions across the United States, including rural areas. By subsidizing out-of-state biofuels, California could foster economic development in these regions, creating jobs and stimulating agricultural innovation. This approach could also support farmers who grow the feedstock for biofuel production, boosting the agricultural economy in the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks. The environmental benefits of biofuels are often debated. Critics argue that the production of biofuels—particularly those made from food crops like corn—can contribute to deforestation, water pollution, and increased food prices. Additionally, biofuels are not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, as their production and combustion still release greenhouse gases. When considering whether to subsidize biofuels, California must also account for the full lifecycle emissions associated with their production and use.

The Case for Electric Vehicles

In contrast to biofuels, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a more direct pathway to reducing emissions from transportation. EVs are powered by electricity, and when coupled with renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, they can provide a nearly zero-emission solution for personal and commercial transportation. California has already invested heavily in EV infrastructure, including expanding its network of charging stations and exploring how EVs can support grid stability through vehicle-to-grid approaches, and offering incentives for consumers to purchase EVs.

Subsidizing in-state EVs could stimulate job creation and innovation within California's thriving clean-tech industry, with other states such as New Mexico projecting substantial economic gains from transportation electrification, and the state has already become a hub for electric vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla, Rivian, and several battery manufacturers. Supporting the EV industry could further strengthen California’s position as a global leader in green technology, attracting investment and fostering growth in related sectors such as battery manufacturing, renewable energy, and smart grid technology.

Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are substantial. As the electric grid becomes cleaner with an increasing share of renewable energy, EVs will become even greener, with lower lifecycle emissions than biofuels. By prioritizing EVs, California could further reduce its carbon footprint while also achieving its long-term climate goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

However, there are challenges. EV adoption in California remains a significant undertaking, requiring major investments in infrastructure as they challenge state power grids in the near term, technology, and consumer incentives. The cost of EVs, although decreasing, still remains a barrier for many consumers. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is essential for EV batteries. While renewable energy is expanding, California’s grid is still reliant on fossil fuels to some degree, and in other jurisdictions such as Canada's 2019 electricity mix fossil generation remains significant, meaning that the full emissions benefit of EVs is not realized until the grid is entirely powered by clean energy.

A Balancing Act

The debate between subsidizing out-of-state biofuels and in-state electric vehicles is ultimately a question of how best to allocate California’s resources to meet its climate and economic goals. Biofuels may offer a quicker fix for reducing emissions from existing vehicles, but their long-term benefits are more limited compared to the transformative potential of electric vehicles, even as some analysts warn of policy pitfalls that could complicate the transition.

However, biofuels still have a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy-duty transportation, where electrification may not be as feasible in the near future. Thus, a mixed strategy that includes both subsidies for EVs and biofuels may be the most effective approach.

Ultimately, California’s decision will likely depend on a combination of factors, including technological advancements, 2021 electricity lessons, and the pace of renewable energy deployment, and the state’s ability to balance short-term needs with long-term environmental goals. The road ahead is not easy, but California's leadership in clean energy will be crucial in shaping the nation’s response to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Wildfire Resilient Power Grid Act proposes DOE grants for utility companies to fund wildfire mitigation, grid resilience upgrades, undergrounding power lines, fast-tripping protection, weather monitoring, and vegetation management, prioritizing rural electric cooperatives.

Key Points

A federal bill funding utility wildfire mitigation and grid hardening via DOE grants, prioritizing rural utilities.

✅ $1B DOE matching grants for grid upgrades and wildfire mitigation.

✅ Prioritizes rural utilities; supports undergrounding and hardening.

✅ Funds fast-tripping protection, weather stations, vegetation management.

U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley today introduced new legislation, amid transmission barriers that persist, to incentivize utility companies to do more to reduce wildfire risks as aging power infrastructure ignite wildfires in Oregon and across the West.

Wyden and Merkley's Wildfire Resilient Power Grid Act of 2020 would ensure power companies do their part to reduce the risk of wildfires through power system upgrades, even as California utility spending crackdown seeks accountability, such as the undergrounding of power lines, fire safety equipment installation and proper vegetation management.

"First and foremost, this is a public safety issue. Fire after fire ignited this summer because the aging power grid could not withstand a major windstorm during the season's hottest and driest days," Wyden said. "Many utility companies are already working to improve the resiliency of their power grid, but the sheer costs of these investments must not come at the expense of equitable regulation for rural utility customers. Congress must do all that it can to stop the catastrophic wildfires decimating the West, and that means improving rural infrastructure. By partnering with utilities around the country, we can increase wildfire mitigation efforts at a modest cost -- a fire prevention investment that will pay dividends by saving lives, homes and businesses."

"When this year's unprecedented wildfire event hit, I drove hundreds of miles across our state to see the damage firsthand and to hear directly from impacted communities, so that I could go back to D.C. and work for the solutions they need," said Merkley. "What I saw was apocalyptic--and we have to do everything we can to reduce the risk of this happening again. That means we have to work with our power companies to get critical upgrades and safety investments into place as quickly as possible."

The Wildfire Resilient Power Grid Act of 2020:

* Establishes a $1 billion-per-year matching grant program for power companies through the Department of Energy, even as ACORE opposed DOE subsidy proposals, to reduce the risk of power lines and grid infrastructure causing wildfires.

* Gives special priority to smaller, rural electric companies to ensure mitigation efforts are targeted to forested rural areas.

* Promotes proven methods for reducing wildfire risks, including undergrounding of lines, installing fast-tripping protection systems, and constructing weather monitoring stations to respond to electrical system fire risks.

* Provides for hardening of overhead power lines and installation of fault location equipment where undergrounding of power lines is not a favorable option.

* Ensures fuels management activities of power companies are carried out in accordance with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.

* Requires power companies to have "skin in the game" by making the program a 1-to-1 matching grant, with an exception for smaller utilities where the matching requirement is one third of the grant.

* Delivers accountability on the part of utilities and the Department of Energy by generating a report every two years on efforts conducted under the grant program.

Portland General Electric President and CEO Maria Pope: "We appreciate Senator Wyden's and Senator Merkley's leadership in proposing legislation to provide federal funding that will help protect Oregon from devastating wildfires. When passed, this will help make Oregon's electric system safer, faster, without increasing customer prices. That is especially important given the economy and hotter, drier summers and longer wildfire seasons that Oregon will continue to face."

Lane County Commission Chair Heather Butch: " In a matter of hours, the entire Lane County community of Blue River was reduced to ashes by the Holiday Farm Fire. Since the moment I first toured that devastation I've been committed to building it back better. I applaud Senators Wyden and Merkley for drafting the Wildfire Resilient Power Grid Act, as it could well provide the path towards meeting this important goal. Moreover, the resultant programs will better protect rural communities from the increasing dangers of wildfires through a number of preventative measures that would otherwise be difficult to implement."

Linn County Commissioner Roger Nyquist: "This legislation is a smart strategic investment for the future safety of our residents as well as the economic vitality of our community."

Marion County Commissioner Kevin Cameron: "After experiencing a traumatic evacuation during the Beachie Creek and Lion's Head wild fires, I understand the need to strengthen the utility Infrastructure. The improvements resulting from Senator Wyden and Merkley's bill will reduce disasters in the future, but improve everyday reliability for our citizens who live, work and protect the environment in potential wildfire areas."

Edison Electric Institute President Tom Kuhn: "EEI thanks Senator Wyden and Senator Merkley for their leadership in introducing the Wildfire Resilient Power Grid Act. This bill will help support and accelerate projects already planned and underway to enhance energy grid resiliency and mitigate the risk of wildfire damage to power lines. Electric companies across the country are committed to working with our government partners and other stakeholders on preparation and mitigation efforts that combat the wildfire threat and on the rapid deployment of technology solutions, including aggregated DERs at FERC, that address wildfire risks, while still maintaining the safe, reliable, and affordable energy we all need."

Oregon Rural Electric Cooperative Association Executive Director Ted Case: "Oregon's electric cooperatives support the Wildfire Resilient Power Grid Act and appreciate Senator Wyden's and Senator Merkley's leadership and innovative approach to wildfire mitigation, particularly for small, rural utilities. This legislation includes targeted assistance that will help us to continue to provide affordable, reliable and safe electricity to over 500,000 Oregonians."

Sustainable Northwest Director of Government Affairs & Program Strategy Dylan Kruse: "In recent years, the West has seen too many wildfires originate due to poorly maintained or damaged electric utility transmission and distribution infrastructure. This legislation plays an important role to ensure that power lines do not contribute to wildfire starts, while providing safe and reliable power to communities during wildfire events. Utilities must, even as Wyoming clean energy bill proposals emerge, live up to their legal requirements to maintain their infrastructure, but this bill provides welcome resources to expedite and prioritize risk reduction, while preventing cost increases for ratepayers."

Oregon Wild Wilderness Program Manager Erik Fernandez: "2020 taught Oregon the lesson that California learned in the Paradise Fire, and SCE wildfire lawsuits that followed underscore the stakes. Addressing the risk of unnaturally caused powerline fires is an increasingly important critical task. I appreciate Senator Ron Wyden's efforts to protect our homes and communities from powerline fires."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News