Tag: rolling blackouts

Electricity Policy Is Economic Policy: The Race For Reliable Power

Electricity policy, at its core is economic policy.

Governments around the world have demonstrated that throwing money at electricity projects such as weather dependent wind turbines and solar panels, does not guarantee success.

From The CO2 Coalition

By Ronald Stein*, Olivia Vaughan, and Steve Curtis

Electricity policy, at its core is economic policy. Nations that can produce abundant, reliable, and affordable electricity create the conditions for industrial growth, technological leadership, higher wages, and rising living standards. Those that fail to do so eventually discover that electricity shortages are a direct threat to national prosperity.

The world is at a pivotal moment. The rapid growth of artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, electrification, and data centers will require vast quantities of dependable electricity. Meeting demand requires more than slogans, subsidies, or politically fashionable technologies based on ideological movements. It requires a serious commitment to baseload power and laser sharp focus on nuclear generated electricity, including the development of advanced spent fuel solutions.

The challenge is not simply one of funding. Governments around the world have demonstrated that throwing money at electricity projects such as weather dependent wind turbines and solar panels, does not guarantee success. Two people cleaning a small shed instead of one may increase the time of success by twofold, but placing fifty people in the same small area will make the task nearly impossible. What needs to be done is the immediate creation of conditions where public policy and private-sector execution work together to deliver measurable outcomes.

Despite America watching the world’s 80 nuclear reactors under construction around the globe,

America has an opportunity to become the global leader in next-generation nuclear generated electricity if policymakers focus on results rather than handouts. While the federal government is definitely moving in the right direction, it should focus its attention on acting as a catalyst, executing on regulatory frameworks timeously, supporting strategic research and development, and partnering with private industry to commercialize advanced reactor technologies, small modular reactors, and spent fuel recycling solutions. Success should be measured not by dollars allocated but by electricity generated, costs reduced, jobs created, and industries built. 

History provides a useful lesson: South Africa once possessed one of the most respected electricity systems in the world. Eskom was established as a state-owned utility focused primarily on reliable power generation and infrastructure delivery. For decades, the organization functioned as a highly capable engineering and project management institution responsible for building the backbone of the country’s electricity network.

One of its biggest achievements in South Africa was the construction of the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station in the Western Cape. Unit 1 being synchronized to the grid in 1984 and Unit 2 in 1985, the power station has just been granted a 20-year life extension. Koeberg remains the only commercial nuclear power station on the African continent and continues to provide stable, low-emission baseload electricity. It has demonstrated the long-term value of nuclear infrastructure.

Electricity problems later emerged not because the country lacked assets or engineering expertise, but because governance and incentives deteriorated and changed over time. Following South Africa’s political transition in 1994, many critics argue that state-owned enterprises became increasingly influenced by political objectives rather than operational excellence. Inefficiencies accumulated, maintenance was deferred, and accountability weakened. The result was a predictable decline in electricity reliability and the ensuing correlated macro-economic effects.

Losses generated by mismanagement from Eskom were socialized across society, while the benefits often accrued to politically connected insiders. As power stations became less reliable and new generation capacity failed to arrive on schedule, South Africa entered a cycle of rolling blackouts known locally as load shedding. The consequences extended far beyond the electricity sector. Factories reduced production, small businesses struggled to survive and investors, domestic and foreign, became wary of committing capital to a country where electricity supply could not be guaranteed, and as a result, economic growth slowed, and productive activity suffered. Note that this is in addition to the millions of people that still lack access to electricity in the country and who were certainly not prioritized during the process.

Against this backdrop, South Africa pursued weather dependent wind turbines and solar panels procurement initiatives resulting in the Green Economy Accord being signed in November 2011 as part of a broader effort to promote green industries, employment creation, and wind and solar development. The Accord emphasized partnership among government, business, labor, and communities while encouraging investment in renewable energy technologies. The employment creation promises of the accord have failed dismally on their targets, and so has the impact on national grid infrastructure stability.

In tandem, the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme (REIPPPP) was also launched in 2011 to attract private-sector investment into wind and solar electricity generation through a competitive procurement process. The program was designed to stimulate wind and solar electricity development and bring private capital into the sector, which it has to some extent, but the pudding proof is the highest year of rolling blackouts recorded in 2023.

In 2023, the country experienced the highest level of rolling blackouts, with the South African Reserve Bank estimating the daily economic cost at up to R1 billion. Koeberg’s Unit 1 was out for maintenance at the time and frustratingly added a stage to every planned power outage (which refers to the frequency of how long you have to go without power – which in 2023, was up to 12 hours per day). None of the solar farms, nor the wind assets could assist in solving this problem.

This is a clear lesson that a nation cannot subsidize its way out its poor electricity policy. Reliable electricity is not optional infrastructure, it is the foundation upon which modern economies operate and citizens of the economy are able to access and sell goods and services essential to modern life.

There are debates about the effectiveness and limitations of wind and solar generated electricity dependent on favorable weather conditions in addressing South Africa’s long-term electricity challenges. What is beyond dispute, however, is that intermittent generation alone cannot fully replace dependable baseload power in a modern industrial economy. Manufacturing plants, hospitals, mines, transportation systems, data centers, and AI infrastructure require electricity every hour of every day, regardless of weather conditions.

The reality of the limitations of wind and solar generated electricity has profound implications for the United States and the World. America’s future competitiveness will increasingly depend on an abundance of electricity. Artificial intelligence systems, semiconductor fabrication facilities, advanced manufacturing plants, and reshored supply chains will require unprecedented amounts of reliable electricity. Meeting those demands with intermittent resources alone will be difficult and increasingly expensive. As experienced in South Africa, Germany and even California. South Africa’s electricity prices have risen over 900% over the last two decades, a case study that should not be ignored when considering national sovereignty. South Africa and America have deep ties in both electricity and industrialization, with Anglo American, Hendrik Vanderbijl and various other endeavors, including Koeberg and the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor project, alongside countries like the US, France and Germany at the time. When the base factors of production (mining, mineral processing, energy) are outsourced to other countries, the result is dependency. This needs to be addressed as a matter of policy forth with.

Nuclear generated electricity offers a different path: Advanced reactors, small modular reactors, and next-generation fuel cycle technologies can provide continuous baseload power while reducing emissions and strengthening electricity security. Equally important, innovations in spent fuel management have the potential to transform what many view as a liability into a strategic asset. Rather than treating spent nuclear fuel as a long-term burden, the United States should invest in technologies that can recycle, reprocess, and extract additional energy value from existing fuel inventories. Such efforts would strengthen domestic electricity independence, reduce waste challenges, and create entirely new industrial sectors. There are substantial efforts underway in France and Asia and US interests are well aligned to capitalize on the opportunity when policy makers, States and industry align.

Partnerships are essential: Governments should not attempt to become the operator, designer, and financier of every solution. Instead, it should create an environment where entrepreneurs, engineers, utilities, and investors can compete to deliver results. Public support should be tied to milestones, performance, and measurable outcomes rather than political promises, and politicians willing to champion pragmatic electricity policies will ultimately help unlock a new era of prosperity. Affordable and abundant electricity does more than keep lights on, it attracts investment, increases productivity, supports higher wages, strengthens national security, and expands economic opportunity. Abundant power leads to expanding industry and expanding industry leads to economic growth, which ultimately creates thriving communities.

The United States, despite watching the world’s 80 nuclear reactors under construction around the globe, together with its partners, has the technology, capital markets, engineering expertise, and industrial capacity to lead the world in nuclear innovation. The question is whether policymakers will choose a path defined by partnerships, accountability, and results. If they do, the reward may just be an age of genuine abundance powered by the most important resource of all, reliable electricity.Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein

Originally published at America Out Loud, August 17, 2026.

Ronald Stein, P.E., is a CO2 Coalition member, engineer, columnist on energy literacy at America Out Loud NEWS, and advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize-nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.” He is also the recipient of an unsolicited Tribute to Ronald Stein from Stephen Heins.

Rolling Blackouts Hit New York

At least since New York passed its Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) back in 2019, it has been clear that trouble has been coming for New York’s electrical grid.

Supposedly, lots of wind and solar generators were going to be added to the system.

From Manhattan Contrarian

 By Francis Menton

At least since New York passed its Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) back in 2019, it has been clear that trouble has been coming for New York’s electrical grid. The CLCPA effectively prohibits construction of new fossil fuel power plants, even natural gas plants; and the old ones are aging and are forbidden to be replaced or upgraded. Supposedly, lots of wind and solar generators were going to be added to the system. But those have been slow to come and, more importantly, can’t be counted on to generate anything when you need them. In addition, new construction of such things has now been stalled by the end of federal subsidies. At some point the lines of diminishing reliable generation and increasing demand would have to cross.

However, here at this website I have held off predicting imminent grid failure. The reason is that I don’t want to be the boy who cried wolf. Our grid operators are competent people, and they have a lot of tricks up their sleeves to hold things together even in difficult circumstances. In a pinch, they can start up every ancient “peaker” plant, and then import some power from PJM, or New England, or even from Canada. Despite New York’s hostile energy environment, they could get lucky and avoid blackouts for at least several more years.

So I think it is important to report that on this past July 2 and 3, Con Edison ran out of options and imposed rolling blackouts in parts of the North Bronx and Southern Westchester County.

You haven’t heard about this? It’s another example of the legacy media burying an inconvenient story. Checking to see what the New York Times has to say about these blackouts, I find just one sentence in the sixth paragraph of a July 3 article that is otherwise reporting on the heat wave that hit that weekend. The sentence in question reads, “The heat also put stress on power grids, contributing to scattered outages in New Jersey, New York and Ohio for tens of thousands of utility customers on Thursday, according to the tracking website PowerOutage.us.” The heat put “stress” on the grid, leading to “scattered outages.” That’s it. No mention in the Times that the blackouts on that day in New York were intentionally imposed, or that the ongoing degradation of grid reliability had anything to do with it.

I have been waiting to report on this until I could find a credible source attributing the blackouts to an intentional act by Con Edison versus, for example, a heat-related accident of some sort. On July 16, the Institute for Energy Research had a piece with the headline “New York City Cuts Power During July 4th Heat Wave.” Excerpt:

Con Edison shut off electricity to over 5,000 customers in the Riverdale section of the Bronx, leaving residents there without air conditioning. Affected residents were directed to city cooling centers for relief. Con Edison had decided the N.Y. grid could not handle the load, saying the shutoffs were necessary to reduce strain on the grid, protect equipment, and speed up restoration. The company also cut voltage by 8% in areas of the city as a precaution to protect equipment and keep service running while crews worked.

So it was not just blackouts for 5,000 customers, but also 8% voltage cuts in various “areas of the city.” IER does not specify the extent of the areas covered by the voltage cuts.

Nor were the blackouts limited to just the Bronx. My colleague Richard Ellenbogen lives in Southern Westchester County, in a town called Pelham. Pelham is just north of the Bronx, and also within Con Edison service territory. In a July 12 email that he sent to his distribution list, Ellenbogen described what happened in his area:

[Over the weekend of July 3-5], [t]here were numerous power surges associated with the rolling blackouts where the lights went on and off several times before going out. . . .  Those surges destroyed a bunch of equipment in my home despite having surge suppressors on the equipment. . . . I missed the Friday evening [July 3] rolling blackout and I returned to a mess.  There is thousands of dollars in damages related to the surges.  Based upon the Facebook Page MOPS (Mothers of Pelham), my home was not the only one impacted as many people are complaining about electronic equipment not working after the blackouts, notably air conditioners. . . . My home is going to need about $3000 worth of new battery backups. . . .

I don’t find any reporting in the press about these blackouts in Westchester.

New York definitely experienced a severe heat wave in early July. The temperature at the Central Park weather station in New York City reached 100° F on July 2, and 98° F on July 3. These are unusually high temperatures that are not reached in most years. Indeed, the last time it reached 100° F at Central Park was in 2012. On the other hand, these temperatures were by no means records. The highest temperature ever recorded at the Central Park station (with data going back into the late 1800s) was 106° F in 1936. Here from recordtemps.in is a list of the highest temperatures ever recorded at the Central Park weather station:

In other words, we have had temperatures over 100° F many times in the past, and undoubtedly we will have them again. But with temperatures on July 2 and 3 that were well short of the records, the grid operators had to resort to imposing rolling blackouts and/or voltage reductions in various areas of the City and Westchester County. One can only imagine how much more extensive the outages would have been if the temperature had gone up another 6° F to match the 1936 record.

Without any ability to add reliable generation to it grid, New York faces more of same every time the heat gets into this range. There is nothing inevitable about this. It is entirely a consequence of intentional decisions made by politicians.

Why Should We Keep New Mexico’s Remaining Coal Plant in Service? It’s Essential.

Shut down New Mexico’s last remaining coal plant (Four Corners Generating Station), environmentalists say, and replace it with renewable energy. But coal is a practical fuel, affordable and dependable. Being generically against coal is no more useful than being generically against electricity. Electricity demand is rapidly rising. Electric vehicles, new AI data centers, and a growing economy simply mean we need more power. And we need reliable power.

From Watts Up With That?

By Jim Constantopoulos

Shut down New Mexico’s last remaining coal plant (Four Corners Generating Station), environmentalists say, and replace it with renewable energy. But coal is a practical fuel, affordable and dependable. Being generically against coal is no more useful than being generically against electricity. Electricity demand is rapidly rising. Electric vehicles, new AI data centers, and a growing economy simply mean we need more power. And we need reliable power.

While new additions of electricity generation remain dominated by intermittent wind and solar power, keeping what we already have on the grid will be critically important to meeting our energy needs and doing so affordably. Across the country, electricity prices have risen faster than the pace of inflation over the past few years. If we tear down our existing sources of reliable power at the very moment electricity demand begins to soar, even higher prices will be an inevitability.

With everyone I’ve encountered who is really immersed in energy issues, the common view is that we need every available energy source, ranging from renewables and nuclear power to coal, just to keep the lights on. Frankly, we all tend to take the on-demand delivery of electricity for granted. We shouldn’t. In just the past month, power demand eclipsed available supply in Louisiana, forcing the grid operator there to institute rolling blackouts (“load shed”) for 100,000 customers on a 90-degree day.

For years, the nation’s grid reliability regulators have been warning of emerging problems. In fact, the nation’s grid reliability watchdog warned that more than half of the nation could face the threat of blackouts over the next decade if we don’t take corrective action to boost our supply of power. This summer, the PJM interconnection grid operator said Maryland is at elevated risk of supply shortages during periods of peak demand. It may be hard to grasp, but we’re staring down a power supply crisis years in the making. Now, the collision of rapidly rising power demand with the loss of the nation’s coal fleet is coming to a head.

We desperately need the coal plants we have left, and the Department of Energy (DOE) has recognized it. In fact, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright recently issued an emergency order to keep a coal-fired power plant in Michigan running through the summer to bolster the MISO grid, which stretches from Louisiana all the way up through Michigan and Wisconsin. That plant was being forced off the grid 15 years before the end of its life by anti-coal regulatory policy. DOE’s position is a simple one: we can’t afford to lose existing plants with so many states critically short of power. The looming threat of power shortages is altering the national perspective about coal. Instead of a problem to solve, our coal plants are a critically important reliability backstop that we need as a bridge to our energy future.

For the foreseeable future, new sources of power should come on the shoulders of these reliability bulwarks, not in place of them. Rotating blackouts, rising prices and missed economic opportunities for lack of power are wholly avoidable if we simply embrace the full suite of energy resources at our disposal. Recognizing the ongoing importance of our coal plants is just the place to begin.

Dr. Jim Constantopoulos is a Professor of Geology and the Director of the Miles Mineral Museum at Eastern New Mexico University. 

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Wanted: More Energy Sanctuary States Like Louisiana

In a move that should inspire every state in the country, Louisiana has passed a groundbreaking law that flips the script on failed renewable mandates. Let’s call it what it is — a common-sense energy sanctuary law. Instead of forcing families and businesses to pay more for unreliable energy from foreign supply chains, Louisiana is now legally prioritizing energy that’s affordable, reliable, and made in America.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Larry Behrens explains the trail blazing move in his Real Clear Energy article Did Louisiana Just Become America’s First Energy Sanctuary State? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

While states like California fumble and self-destruct, Louisiana is doing
something revolutionary: standing up to the Green New Scam.

In a move that should inspire every state in the country, Louisiana has passed a groundbreaking law that flips the script on failed renewable mandates. Let’s call it what it is — a common-sense energy sanctuary law. Instead of forcing families and businesses to pay more for unreliable energy from foreign supply chains, Louisiana is now legally prioritizing energy that’s affordable, reliable, and made in America.

That’s not just common sense — it’s leadership.

The technical name is Act 462, but it might well be called “Louisiana’s Energy Independence Act” because it does something no Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) has ever done: it puts working families first. It defines energy not by whether it checks a political box, but by whether it keeps the lights on and bills low. In fact, the law goes so far as to define dispatchable and reliable energy in statute, mandating that Louisiana’s grid must prioritize sources that stabilize voltage, ramp up when needed, and avoid dependence on “foreign adversary nations.”

That’s a direct shot at the China-backed solar and wind lobby — and it’s about time.

This policy shift couldn’t come at a better moment. New data shows that the states most committed to Renewable Portfolio Standards — California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York — are now suffering the highest and fastest-growing electricity rates in the nation. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration and ElectricChoice’s latest June 2025 numbers:

  • Hawaii’s electricity rate is 42.34¢/kWh — a staggering 228% above the national average.
  • Massachusetts sits at 31.22¢/kWh — up 142%.
  • And California, the poster child of the Green New Scam, is at 30.55¢/kWh — 137% higher than average.

What do these states have in common? They all have binding RPS mandates and have shut down reliable fossil fuel power plants that once powered homes and industries affordably. In California alone, plants like Alamitos, Potrero, and Huntington Beach were taken offline — all while the state imported Chinese-made solar panels and offshore wind turbines with price tags subsidized by taxpayers.

And the results? Sky-high bills, rolling blackouts,
and dependence on intermittent power that collapses
when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow.

Meanwhile, Louisiana — a state with no binding RPS and an energy mix that includes natural gas — enjoys rates nearly 9% below the national average. It’s joined by other affordable states like North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Carolina — none of which have mandatory green energy quotas.

So yes, Louisiana is charting a new path, and the rest of the country should follow. The message of Louisiana’s Energy Independence Act is simple: energy policy should serve people, not political agendas. By prioritizing affordability and reliability, Louisiana levels the playing field and forces every source of energy — whether gas, coal, solar, or wind — to compete based on merit, not mandates.

And for working families? That’s a win every single time.

Let the climate activists whine. Let the solar lobby scream. Louisiana just showed the country what energy leadership looks like — and it starts by saying no to the Green New Scam and yes to the people who actually pay the bills.

Other states should take note. The future isn’t in chasing unicorns. It’s in putting common sense and the American worker back at the center of energy policy.

New Texas Law To Force Renewables To Be Dispatchable

Sounds like Texas is getting fed up with its electricity system being increasingly put at risk by wind and solar power.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Sounds like Texas is getting fed up with its electricity system being increasingly put at risk by wind and solar power.

After years of papering over the cracks with half hearted proposals, it appears that the State Legislature will formally pass a law requiring all generators, not just new ones, to be fully dispatchable.

Ed Ireland has the story:

In 2021, Winter Storm Uri pushed Texas’s electricity grid to the brink, with just 4 minutes and 37 seconds from total collapse. Snow, ice, and freezing temperatures covered all 254 counties in the State for five days, starting February 13. Wind turbines froze, overcast skies incapacitated solar panels, some natural gas wells experienced freeze-offs, and even coal plants struggled with frozen equipment.

As power generators failed and electricity demand skyrocketed, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) ordered rolling blackouts across Texas. Some local utilities unknowingly cut power to areas with electric natural gas compressors, which stopped gas flows to generating stations, causing more outages. (The Railroad Commission of Texas created a new division, Critical Infrastructure, so this problem would never happen again.) The grid’s frequency dropped dangerously below 60 hertz, nearly crashing, but a slight drop in demand and the recovery of some generation saved the grid from total collapse, which could have required weeks to recover from a “black” start of the grid.

Since then, ERCOT, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT), and lawmakers have repeatedly vowed to prevent another near-disaster. They have proposed ideas such as:

  • Weatherization requirements for power plants to handle extreme cold (passed in 2021 via Senate Bill 3).
  • Incentives for building more dispatchable power, specifically natural gas plants, such as the Texas Energy Fund (House Bill 1500, 2023).
  • Market reforms prioritize reliable power, such as the Performance Credit Mechanism, which was debated but not implemented.

None of these proposals squarely addressed the grid reliability problem until Texas House Bill 3356 and Senate Bill 715 were recently approved by legislative committees and could become law. These bills set new reliability rules for all ERCOT power generators, not just new ones. They require all power generators on ERCOT, including wind and solar, to be dispatchable, meaning they can quickly adjust to meet demand.

To comply, generators must either build their own backup power, such as battery energy storage systems (BESS), or contract with others to provide their backup power.

Read the full post here.

It’s time we did the same here!

CCC’s Carbon Budget Does Not Add Up

Overall the CCC’s report seems to have less detail and technical input than previous budgets, and electricity supply is no exception.

It recommends a capacity mix, for instance, but little insight into the implications for the grid. It has Emma Pinchbeck’s fingerprints all over it, given her background as head of the lobbyist Renewable UK.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-seventh-carbon-budget/#publication-downloads

As promised, an in depth look at the Seventh Carbon Budget, which runs from 2038 to 2042.

Electricity Supply

Overall, the CCC’s report seems to have less detail and technical input than previous budgets, and electricity supply is no exception.

It recommends a capacity mix, for instance, but little insight into the implications for the grid.  It has Emma Pinchbeck’s fingerprints all over it, given her background as head of the lobbyist Renewable UK.

Incredibly nowhere does the document mention “peak demand” at all, except for this comment:

The object of the Budget report is clearly to force through as much renewable generation as possible, regardless of any other considerations.

But we do know from last year’s FES report that peak demand is projected to rise to 81 GW in 2035 and 102 GW in 2040. And as FES clarifies, these figures are after allowing for smart EV charging and residential demand side response and therefore must be treated as optimistic.

According to the CCC’s plan, we will only have 52 GW of reliable capacity in 2040, nearly half of that being unabated gas power. We know that there are times when wind power runs at 5% or less of capacity, meaning we might get five or six gigawatts at most at these times. We also know that solar power is virtually nonexistent in mid-winter.

Even if we could rely on interconnectors, which we most certainly cannot. we will still be well short of the supply needed. Storage would mainly only be enough for a couple of hours. (CCC also assume 7 GW/ 419 GWh of unproven medium-term storage, enough to plug the gap for a few hours).

That leaves the frightening prospect of DSR, which the CCC estimate at 29 GW. (And as we have seen, the FES already allows for some DSR. Putting it bluntly, the CCC propose that we take up to a third of demand off the grid at times – rolling blackouts, in other words.

And let’s not fool ourselves that this would be merely switching demand from 5pm to 7pm, or even night. With the DSR already built into the FES, charging of EVs at night, spreading out heat pump loads and so on, daily demand in cold weather would probably range from about 80 GW to 100 GW. In other words, even at times of lowest demand, there would not be enough supply, and certainly no surplus to recharge batteries and other forms of storage.

Yet remarkably the CCC do not even recognise this as a problem, merely commenting:

I’ll cover the other sections later.

The UK’s shaky ‘firm’ capacity

As many readers know, the GB electricity grid narrowly missed a blackout at the start of January. As was widely reported that the time, it looks as though we were down to our last half a gigawatt of spare capacity. After that, the only option available to grid managers is to switch people off, either through voluntary arrangements (so-called ‘demand-side response’) or through compulsion – rolling blackouts, in other words.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

As many readers know, the GB electricity grid narrowly missed a blackout at the start of January. As was widely reported that the time, it looks as though we were down to our last half a gigawatt of spare capacity. After that, the only option available to grid managers is to switch people off, either through voluntary arrangements (so-called ‘demand-side response’) or through compulsion – rolling blackouts, in other words.

It is beyond doubt, therefore, that the system is very fragile. When all is said and done, the blame can be laid squarely at the feet of renewables, our 45 gigawatts of which delivered just 2.6 gigawatts of actual output during the evening peak of 8 January 2025. In some ways, we got lucky – at other times this year, renewables output has fallen to 0.5 gigawatts. If that had happened on 8 January, grid managers would simply not have been able to find the extra capacity required.

In the event, we had just enough reliable generation – gas and nuclear – to fill the gap. They ran pretty much flat out, and the lights stayed on.

However, there’s a problem, and it’s a big one.

Very few gas-fired power stations stay open for longer than three decades, and much of the GB fleet is now very long in the tooth. The Medway power station will hit age 30 this year, and Little Barford, Connah’s Quay and Keadby will follow in 2026. To make things even worse, the Hartlepool nuclear power station is scheduled to close next year too, while Heysham will close in 2027.

At the moment, the grid is making reassuring noises. The Capacity Market, which subsidises power stations to “be there” when renewables decide not to deliver, has booked “firm” capacity of 43 gigawatts for winter 2027–28, and they will expect to top that up nearer the time.

But look a little closer, and the picture becomes less rosy. For example, more than 1 gigawatt of the total is batteries, which will probably only be able to deliver for two hours. By counting them as firm capacity, grid managers are essentially crossing their fingers and hoping that stress events are very brief. Another gigawatt is “unproven” demand-side response – people who say they are willing to switch off when supplies are tight. Will they do so in practice? Nobody can be sure.

Nearly 7 gigawatts of the total is interconnectors, the “firm” nature of which is increasingly open to question. As we know from previous grid crises, when there is a shortage of electricity here in the UK, there is usually a shortage across Western Europe, because wind speeds are highly correlated. The result is a bidding war for the limited supplies of electricity. Those with surplus firm power – notably Norway and France – are increasingly asking why their consumers should have to put up with sky-high prices because the rest of Europe runs its electricity system in a completely irresponsible way. Oslo in particular seems likely to cut the interconnectors in future, rather than endure the economic pain.

But the bulk of the UK’s firm capacity is gas-fired, and much of this is shaky, rather than firm. Nearly 2 gigawatts of the total is represented by a proposed new unit at Eggborough. However, a few weeks ago, the developers relinquished the capacity contract for one of the two units and, with a building contractor apparently yet to be appointed, it remains unclear whether the other will go ahead either.

Also in the gas-fired segment are all those decrepit units mentioned above. Their advanced ages means that their status as firm capacity is open to question. It’s all very well a rusting old power station saying it will be there to help out in 2027, but when the engineers try to switch it on, will it actually deliver? There are fines for failing to do so, but not so onerous as to discourage operators from taking the subsidy and crossing their fingers.

On the face of it then, it is quite possible that a large chunk of our 43 gigawatts of firm capacity for winter 2027-28 may not materialise. There are a few scraps of hope around. EDF have apparently indicated that the lives of Hartlepool and Heysham might be extended, which would certainly help things. It is possible that some of the older gas-fired units might take new capacity market contracts to convert to single-cycle power stations (OCGTs) – more suited to running at low-capacity factors. But OCGTs deliver much more costly power than CCGTs, so hard-pressed consumers should expect even more pain. Finally, grid managers will be hoping that electricity demand doesn’t rise as quickly as forecast over the next few years. That might give them a little more breathing space.

But a mixture of quick fixes and Hail Marys only to adds to the already worrying impression of a grid that resembles (to misquote the eighteenth century diplomat George MacCartney) “an old, crazy, first-rate Man of War, which a fortunate succession of able and vigilant officers have contrived to keep afloat for these thirty years past”.

How much longer it can be kept from sinking remains to be seen.

https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/the-coming-capacity-crunch

How Close Were We to Blackouts Yesterday?

We came perilously close to rolling blackouts yesterday, something which I have not seen reported in the media – (correct me, I may be wrong!!).

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

We came perilously close to rolling blackouts yesterday, something which I have not seen reported in the media – (correct me, I may be wrong!!).

The ever-alert Kathryn Porter has the full story here.

This is her conclusion:

The reference to the Viking I/C, by the way, is that it managed to provide 700 MW on a dipole, which was intended to be offline for maintenance.

Below is the Elexon chart for generation and I/C supply during yesterday:

https://bmrs.elexon.co.uk/generation-by-fuel-type

Annoyingly, they don’t seem to have an option to show which fuel categories are which! But I have filtered out below everything except for Biomass, CCGT, Nuclear and Wind, in that order. (I/Cs at 5.30pm were supplying 6.3 GW, Pumped Storage 1.7 GW, OCGT 0.9 GW and Others 3.8 GW).

With Biomass and Nuclear running flat out, CCGT supplied 24.2 GW at that time. Wind ran at 2.6 GW. It needs to be pointed out that wind has often fallen to less than 1 GW in winter.

This particular near miss appears to have caught the NESO by surprise, because demand turned out to be 3 GW higher than anticipated three days before. And as Kathryn points out, alarm bells are already ringing for Friday evening, when winds are forecast to be even lighter than last night.

Why did we get into this awful mess?

It does not take a genius to work out why? We shut down more than 20 GW of reliable coal capacity and thought we could replace it with medieval technology that only works when the wind blows!

Households Drop Out of Energy Rationing Scheme

You will recall that the NESO told Ed Miliband that we would need about 12 GW of demand flexibility come 2030, because of the inability of intermittent renewables to be switched up and down in order to meet demand.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Philip Bratby

https://www.neso.energy/publications/clean-power-2030

You will recall that the NESO told Ed Miliband that we would need about 12 GW of demand flexibility come 2030, because of the inability of intermittent renewables to be switched up and down in order to meet demand.

Some of this may come from smart charging of EVs, ie charging at night rather than at times of peak demand. This is not really relevant however, as EV charging is a tiny factor at the moment.

That leaves about 6 GW of flexibility based on current demand patterns. Residential demand peaks at around 15 GW in winter, and including Industrial demand adds up to about 20 GW.

In other words, NESO are “hoping” that a quarter of customers will voluntarily switch off appliances when asked to.

This always seemed pie-in-the-sky, and now the Telegraph has revealed that hundreds of thousands of customers have dropped out of the government’s Demand Flexibility Service. Last year more than 2 million households signed up in return for discounts on their bills. This year the number has declined to 750,000 according to NESO.

The full Telegraph story is here.

If demand is not reduced voluntarily, the only other option is rolling blackouts.

California Dreamin’: Newsom’s Energy Fiasco

A recent Wall Street Journal article titled “Climate Action’ Has California’s Energy Economy on Its Knees” lays bare the grim reality of Governor Gavin Newsom’s energy and climate policies, which are undermining California’s economy while delivering negligible environmental benefits. For those enamored with high costs, unreliable power, and empty promises, Newsom’s policies provide a masterclass in dysfunction.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

A recent Wall Street Journal article titled “Climate Action’ Has California’s Energy Economy on Its Knees” lays bare the grim reality of Governor Gavin Newsom’s energy and climate policies, which are undermining California’s economy while delivering negligible environmental benefits. For those enamored with high costs, unreliable power, and empty promises, Newsom’s policies provide a masterclass in dysfunction.

A State in Crisis

California, once the envy of the nation for its innovation and economic might, is now making headlines for rolling blackouts and skyrocketing energy costs. Under Governor Newsom’s leadership, the state has committed to achieving carbon neutrality through aggressive climate policies. But as the WSJ article aptly highlights, these policies are undermining the very foundation of the state’s energy infrastructure.

The consequences are painfully evident. California’s energy grid has become a house of cards, with the state’s dependence on renewable sources like solar and wind creating significant vulnerabilities. These energy sources are inherently intermittent—solar doesn’t generate power at night, and wind energy is unreliable. The result? A grid plagued by instability, leading to frequent blackouts. When the lights go out in California, residents are left wondering why their exorbitant energy bills don’t seem to buy reliability.

The High Cost of Virtue Signaling

One of the most damning critiques from the WSJ article is California’s astronomical energy costs. The average retail price for electricity in the state hovers around 26 cents per kilowatt-hour—nearly twice the national average. For low-income households, this is not just a financial burden but a crisis. Families struggling to make ends meet are forced to allocate a disproportionate share of their income to cover energy bills. For all the talk of “climate justice,” California’s policies are regressive, hitting the most vulnerable the hardest.

As a result, California’s households and businesses pay for the most expensive electricity and gasoline in the lower 48 states. It’s all for nothing. California still relies on oil and gas for 80% of its energy, a reliance on fossil fuel that is the same as the national average.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/climate-action-has-californias-energy-economy-on-its-knees-green-lawfare-oil-e11518a2?

These costs stem from the state’s forced transition to renewables, which are far from self-sufficient. Wind and solar require significant backup from fossil fuels or prohibitively expensive battery storage to ensure a stable power supply. Ironically, these backups often increase emissions because natural gas plants must ramp up production quickly during gaps in renewable output—a practice that is both inefficient and environmentally damaging. So, while Newsom and his administration champion their climate goals, the results tell a very different story: higher costs, higher emissions, and no meaningful impact on global climate trends.

The Death of the Oil and Gas Industry

California’s war on fossil fuels has had devastating consequences for its energy workers. Once a powerhouse of oil and gas production, the state has steadily eroded this industry through restrictive drilling regulations, refinery closures, and an overarching hostility to traditional energy. Thousands of high-paying jobs have disappeared, leaving workers with few alternatives.

This is pure hypocrisy. Instead of safely extracting oil in a state with the world’s most rigorous environmental and labor protections, California is forced to refine oil imported from such paragons of human rights and environmental stewardship as Ecuador, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Meantime, California’s refineries are shutting down, one by one, without the option to import gasoline thanks to the special formulation the state requires to lower the “carbon content” of transportation fuel.

The state’s push for electric vehicles (EVs) further illustrates its disdain for practical considerations. Newsom’s mandate that all new cars sold in California must be electric by 2035 sounds visionary but ignores glaring realities. California’s energy grid, already on life support, is ill-equipped to handle the surge in demand that millions of EV chargers will create. The WSJ article notes that the infrastructure for such a transition simply does not exist, making the mandate more fantasy than policy.

Moreover, the reliance on imported raw materials for EV batteries raises serious questions about sustainability and ethics. Mining for lithium, cobalt, and other key components of batteries often occurs in countries with poor labor and environmental standards. California’s policies may shift emissions elsewhere, but they fail to address the global impact of these supply chains.

Net Zero: A Hollow Promise

Governor Newsom’s ultimate goal of achieving Net Zero emissions epitomizes the flaws in California’s approach to climate policy. Even under the rosiest assumptions, the state’s emissions reductions will have a negligible impact on global temperatures. Estimates cited in the WSJ article suggest that California’s efforts might reduce global temperatures by a fraction of a degree—hardly enough to justify the economic and social upheaval these policies are causing.

The push for Net Zero has become a mantra among climate activists, but it is worth asking: At what cost? California’s policies prioritize symbolic gestures over practical solutions. The state’s closure of its last nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon, is a prime example. Nuclear energy is one of the most reliable and low-carbon power sources available, yet it has been sidelined in favor of less dependable renewables. This decision reflects a broader trend in California’s climate policies: ideology taking precedence over effectiveness.

The False Promise of Green Jobs

Proponents of California’s climate policies often tout the potential for “green jobs” to replace those lost in traditional energy sectors. However, this narrative falls apart under scrutiny. Jobs in renewable energy tend to be less stable and lower-paying than those in the oil and gas industry. Moreover, many so-called green jobs are temporary positions tied to the construction phase of renewable energy projects. Once the solar panels are installed or the wind turbines are erected, the jobs disappear.

The WSJ article highlights another inconvenient truth: California’s green energy sector is heavily reliant on foreign manufacturers, particularly from China. By outsourcing production, California is not only undermining its own workforce but also supporting industries in countries with questionable environmental and labor practices. This is hardly the green utopia that policymakers promised.

Perhaps the worst of Mr. Newsom’s schemes is offshore wind, for which the California Air Resources Board has planned 25 gigawatts of capacity. They clearly haven’t thought this through. Just offshore, California’s continental shelf rapidly descends to a depth of 4,000 feet. This requires floating wind turbines, which must be imported from Europe or China. The plan calls for developers to haul 2,500 of these 10 megawatt turbines, each about 1,000 feet tall from the waterline to the tip of the blade, to points 20 miles offshore. There they’ll be connected to the sea floor with cables nearly a mile long. High-voltage underwater cables will transmit electricity to onshore substations. This is an environmental and financial catastrophe in waiting, but Mr. Newsom says only a climate denier would oppose it.

These are the consequences of a state run by rent-seeking renewable-energy firms and the environmentalist fanatics that offer them political cover. Mr. Newsom’s climate action is hitting every industry and every household.

Unintended Consequences

Beyond the economic and environmental failures, California’s policies are creating a cascade of unintended consequences. The state’s high energy costs and regulatory burdens are driving businesses and residents to flee in record numbers. Companies that once considered California their home are relocating to more business-friendly states like Texas and Florida. This exodus is eroding the state’s tax base, further compounding its financial woes.

Meanwhile, the state’s reliance on renewables has made it vulnerable to geopolitical risks. As the WSJ article points out, China dominates the global supply chain for solar panels and batteries. By tethering its energy future to these technologies, California is effectively ceding control over its energy independence to a foreign power—a strategic blunder of epic proportions.

A Blueprint for Failure

California’s energy policies serve as a cautionary tale for other states and nations. They highlight the dangers of prioritizing ideology over practicality, and of implementing sweeping mandates without considering their feasibility or consequences. Governor Newsom may enjoy basking in the glow of international accolades, but his policies are leaving ordinary Californians in the dark—both literally and figuratively.

The WSJ article underscores the need for a balanced approach to energy policy—one that recognizes the importance of reliable baseload power, the economic realities facing working families, and the limitations of current renewable technologies. Unfortunately, California’s leadership seems more interested in scoring political points than in addressing these pressing challenges.

Conclusion: A Model to Avoid

If California truly wants to lead, it must offer a model that balances environmental stewardship with economic vitality. Instead, it has become a laboratory for extreme policies that deliver little more than hardship for its citizens. As the WSJ article makes clear, the state’s “climate action” policies are a warning, not a blueprint.

For those who value reliable energy, affordable living, and economic opportunity, California’s trajectory under Governor Newsom is a sobering reminder of what happens when politics takes precedence over pragmatism. Other states and nations would do well to learn from California’s mistakes rather than emulate them. The Golden State may be green, but its energy policies are leaving its citizens in the red.