Eversource Energy

Eversource Energy is a publicly traded, Fortune 500 energy company headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut, and Boston, Massachusetts, with several regulated subsidiaries offering retail electricity, natural gas service and water service to approximately 4 million customers in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
Following its 2012 merger with Boston-based NSTAR, Northeast Utilities had more than 4,270 circuit miles of electric transmission lines, 72,000 pole miles of distribution lines, and 6,459 miles of natural gas pipeline in New England.
On February 2, 2015, the company and all its subsidiaries rebranded themselves as "Eversource Energy". The stock symbol changed on February 19, 2015, from "NU" to "ES".
Corporate structure.
Before its rebranding, the company operated six main subsidiaries: Connecticut Light and Power (CL&P), Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH), Western Massachusetts Electric Company (WMECO), Yankee Gas Services Company (Yankee Gas), NSTAR Electric, and NSTAR Gas. NSTAR itself was the product of corporate mergers, and included the former Boston Edison Company, Cambridge Electric Light Company, Commonwealth Electric Company, Commonwealth Gas, and Cambridge Gas Company. All now currently operate under the Eversource name.
Eversource remains Connecticut's largest electric utility, serving more than 1.2 million residential, municipal, commercial and industrial customers in approximately 149 cities and towns. It also serves approximately 229,000 natural gas customers in 73 cities and towns.
Eversource is also New Hampshire's largest electric utility, serving more than 500,000 homes and businesses in 211 cities and towns throughout the state.
It is also a main distributor of energy to 1.7 million customers throughout Massachusetts, including more than 1.4 million electric customers in 140 communities and more than 300,000 natural gas customers in 51 communities.
History.
Eversource predecessor Northeast Utilities (NU) was formed on July 1, 1966, with the merger of Connecticut Light and Power Company (CL&P, formed in 1917), Western Massachusetts Electric Company (WMECO, formed in 1886), and the Hartford Electric Light Company (HELCO, formed in 1878) under a single parent company, creating the first new multi-state public utility holding company since the enactment of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. In 1967, Holyoke Water Power Company (HWP) (formed in 1859) joined the NU System, and in 1992 the Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH, formed in 1926) followed.
After some up-and-down growth under CEO Lelan Sillin (1970–1983) and his successor, William B. Ellis, PSNH declared bankruptcy in January 1988 due to problems getting a license for the completed Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.
In 1999, Con Edison and Northeast Utilities entered negotiations that would have created one of the largest utilities in the United States. However, Con Edison backed out of the merger in 2001 after Connecticut's Attorney General Richard Blumenthal threatened lawsuits to block it.
Legislation passed in the late 1990s deregulated the electricity market in New England and required regulated utilities to divest generating stations to competitive suppliers. In 1999 the company divested all of the generating assets of WMECO and CL&P per requirements of the Massachusetts and Connecticut legislation. The company retained some of these assets by transferring them to a new subsidiary called Northeast Generation which functioned as a competitive supplier and sold the other assets entirely: WMECO's West Springfield Generating Station and several related hydroelectric and fossil fuel generating units were sold to Con Edison, while other assets (most notably the Northfield Mountain hydroelectric facility) were transferred to Northeast Generation.
In 2001, NU sold the assets and operations of its subsidiary, the Holyoke Water Power Company, to the City of Holyoke including the HWP electrical distribution system and customer base and all generation with the exception of the Mt. Tom coal-fired power plant which NU retained. The city's municipal gas and electric department assumed responsibility for the generators and absorbed the HWP distribution customer base. Between 2000 and 2002 due to state laws, NU divested WMECO, CL&P, and PSNH's nuclear generating assets which consisted of their stakes in the Seabrook, Millstone, and Vermont Yankee stations.
In November 2005, the company announced it would sell its unregulated competitive businesses, including generation and energy services. In November 2006 the company had essentially completed the divestiture of its competitive businesses.
In 2006, NU decided to sell the generating units it had earlier retained in the 1999 divestiture as competitive suppliers and shut down its competitive generation business units. The Northeast Generation assets, including Mount Tom Station and Northfield Mountain, were all sold to Energy Capital Partners. PSNH continued to operate regulated hydroelectric and fossil fuel generation assets to serve its default/basic service customers who did not choose an alternative competitive supplier.
In October 2010, Northeast Utilities announced that it would merge with NSTAR, the major electric and gas provider in Greater Boston, with the resulting company retaining the Northeast Utilities name for the next several years. After government approvals, the deal closed in April 2012.
In 2015 the company (now known as Eversource) agreed to sell all of its New Hampshire generation assets in the same manner it sold its assets in Massachusetts and Connecticut between 2000 and 2006. The sale of the New Hampshire generation fleet was approved by the state's Public Utilities Commission on November 29, 2017, and completed on January 10, 2018.
In June 2017 Eversource announced its merger with Aquarion Water Company for $1.675 billion. Aquarion would become a fully owned subsidiary and retain its own name, adding 300 employees and 230,000 customers in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. In December 2017, the merger was completed after government approval.
Major projects.
Eversource Energy has participated in a number of projects to improve the reliability of the power grid in southwest Connecticut. The first project was construction of the $350 million 345 kilovolt Bethel-Norwalk transmission line through the western part of the state, and was constructed entirely by the company when it was still known as Northeast Utilities.
With United Illuminating, an upgrade to the 69-mile (112 km), 345 kilovolt Middletown-Norwalk transmission line was energized in 2009 at a cost of $900 million.
In 2013, the Greater Springfield Reliability Project, a component of the ongoing New England East-West Solution, was energized at a cost of $795 million. The project addressed numerous reliability issues with the Springfield, MA area's 115 kV transmission system by constructing two new 345 kV lines to the Agawam substation; one line north to Ludlow and the other south to North Bloomfield, Connecticut.
The new 345 kV corridor added a new strong interface between Massachusetts and Connecticut. The project also involved rebuilding all of the 115 kV lines along the transmission corridor between South Agawam and Ludlow to increase their capacities, building a new 115 kV transmission substation in East Springfield (Cadwell), replacing the Fairmont 115 kV transmission substation in Chicopee with a new substation across the street, and configuring a new 115 kV line from South Agawam to Southwick using a combination of both new and old line segments of the former 115 kV path between Agawam and North Bloomfield. The new Cadwell and Fairmont switching stations allowed a number of three-terminal 115 kV lines to be broken up into two-terminal lines. Finally, the project allowed a problematic underground 115 kV transmission path through the city of Springfield that was vulnerable to thermal overloads to be removed from service by breaking it in half at the middle. The underground lines now function solely to supply the distribution load served out of the Breckwood substation in Springfield. A previously proposed costly project that would have replaced the underground cables is no longer necessary. On November 20, 2013, cutover of 115 kV lines to the new Fairmont Switching Station was complete, marking substantial completion of the GSRP.
Eversource has taken action to support the use of electric vehicles. Starting in 2018, the company began spending $45 million over five years to install over 400 electric vehicle charging stations in Massachusetts. The project is part of the company's Grid Modernization plan. The company has switched much of its power source from coal to natural gas, wind, hydroelectricity and solar power.
HVDC transmission ("Northern Pass" Project).
As Northeast Utilities the company signed on a joint venture with Hydro-Québec and NSTAR to build a new high-voltage direct current (HVDC) line from Windsor, Quebec (connecting with the Quebec grid) to a location in Franklin, New Hampshire. It is projected that the line will either run in an existing right-of-way adjacent to the HVDC line that runs through New Hampshire, or it will connect to a right-of-way in northern New Hampshire that will run through the White Mountains. This 180- to 190-mile line, projected to carry 1,200 megawatts, will carry electricity to approximately one million homes. The issue of buying hydropower from Hydro-Québec had been an issue during the Massachusetts gubernatorial election of 2010. In November 2015, the Sierra Club of New Hampshire also expressed opposition for the new line, saying that it would not only benefit Connecticut and Massachusetts residents more than those in New Hampshire, but also the concern of the flooding of boreal forests during the construction of Hydro-Québec's dams in northern Quebec, disputes with the Innu First Nations, and the effects of tourism and the environment within the White Mountain National Forest.
On January 25, 2018, Massachusetts Governor Baker selected this "Northern Pass Transmission" (NPT) project as the winner for a clean energy procurement RFP.
However, days later on February 1, 2018, the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee voted unanimously to deny Eversource's controversial Northern Pass project a permit, leaving the future of the project, and $1.6B of Eversource's Transmission Rate Base Growth Projections in doubt.
On July 26, 2019, Eversource Energy announced that it was giving up Northern Pass after the New Hampshire Supreme Court rejected its appeal and sided with the SEC.
Transmission controversy (FERC Complaint).
While Eversource reported that its electric transmission earnings were up 80 percent in Q2 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is now investigating the utility for having transmission rates that appear to be “unjust, unreasonable and unduly discriminatory or preferential”. Meanwhile, the potential for rooftop solar to prevent the need for new transmission lines is growing and Eversource wants to cap rooftop solar growth in the state.
Political connections.
In 2015, Eversource fought the rooftop solar industry and supported anti-solar policies. In Massachusetts, they staffed the State House with lobbyists in order to end legislation promoting growth of the solar industry. During the 2015 legislative session in New Hampshire, Eversource opposed an increase to the state's solar net metering cap. New Hampshire's cap is lower than all neighboring states.
Eversource disclosed on its website politically related organization expenditures of $110,000 to the Democratic Governors Association in 2016, and payments made to trade associations that were used for lobbying or other political activities in excess of $135,000.
Rate hikes and solar charges.
In Massachusetts, Attorney General Maura Healey testified in March, 2017 before the DPU urging it to deny Eversource's proposed $300 million rate increase. In her testimony, she challenged the need for Eversource's rate increase, noting NSTAR's and WMECo's high returns over the last few years. Referencing NSTAR's 2015 return of more than 13 percent, Attorney General Healey told the DPU that “[l]ast year, no state public utility commission in the country allowed a return that high.” Between 2010 and 2015, Eversource's shareholders of common stock received a cumulative total return (including quarterly dividends and the change in the market price per share) of 89 percent.
On November 30, 2017, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities on Thursday approved a much-reduced rate hike for Eversource Energy that will allow it to charge its Massachusetts electric customers tens of millions of dollars more a year. On December 20, 2017, Attorney General Maura Healey appealed the DPU ruling in the Eversource rate case, specifically the DPU's approval of a costly 10 percent shareholder return, one of the highest rates allowed by an electric distribution company regulator in the last five years.
On January 30, 2018, Massachusetts Rep. Thomas Golden and Sen. Michael Barrett held an Oversight Hearing on the DPU's decision to approve Eversource's proposal to include a demand charge as part of a monthly minimum reliability contribution on net metering customers. Rep. Golden accused the utility of purposefully making the new charges "as confusing as possible." He said, "Let me tell you something gentlemen, I'm not happy how this was rolled out. I'm not happy with the lack of information my office has received." Golden, co-chairman of the Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, helped write the 2016 law that permits utilities to levy a new minimum monthly charge, and he told Eversource executives they were making it "extremely, extremely difficult" for him to continue to support them in the policy.
Price manipulation controversy.
In 2017, an environmental group accused Eversource and Avangrid of driving up electric, gas rates over several winters by buying up shipment capacity on a major pipeline that they ultimately did not use. The Environmental Defense Fund said both utilities routinely reserved big deliveries of natural gas on the Algonquin pipeline system for frigid days, but then sharply reduced those orders too late in the day for others to use that capacity. Those orders had the effect of driving up wholesale prices for natural gas during peak winter heating periods and in turn increasing the costs of electricity generated by gas-fired power plants. The two utilities “engaged in behavior that would tend to have the largest impact on prices,” said N. Jonathan Peress, a senior director at the New York-based environmental group. “That implies they knew their efforts would have some sort of pricing impact that would provide them with some commercial benefit.” Representatives for both utilities denied they did anything improper.
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey is reviewing the findings, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to open an investigation on the matter, and both the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority and the Massachusetts Public Utilities Department are launching inquiries of their own.
On Feb. 27, 2018, FERC announced their investigation “revealed no evidence of anticompetitive withholding of natural gas pipeline capacity on Algonquin Gas Transmission by New England shippers.” It said that following an extensive review Commission staff “determined that EDF’s study was flawed and led to incorrect conclusions about the alleged withholding.”
A class-action lawsuit filed on November 14, 2017 against Avangrid, Inc. and Eversource Energy claims the two companies caused electricity consumers to incur overcharges of $3.6 billion in a years-long scheme that impacted six states and affected 14.7 million people. The lawsuit states that 7.1 million retail electricity customers and an overall population of 14.7 million people have been affected by Eversource and Avangrid's “unique monopoly” spanning at least from 2013 to 2016. On June 10, 2019, the case was thrown out of court as the judge stated natural gas prices are federally regulated and could not be interfered with by the court..
On December 11, 2017, the utility sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Environmental Defense Fund, demanding the group remove a report from its website that accused Eversource of driving up electricity prices with its contracting practices for natural gas.


Choptank Electric Cooperative

Choptank Electric Cooperative is a nonprofit utility cooperative that distributes electricity to rural areas in the Eastern Shore region of the state of Maryland. The cooperative, which was founded in 1938, is headquartered in Denton.
Electricity.
Choptank Electric Cooperative is owned by its members, who each have one vote in deciding which co-op members will serve on the board of directors. They serve more than 52,000 members in Caroline, Cecil, Dorchester, Kent, Queen Anne's, Somerset, Talbot, Wicomico, and Worcester counties on Maryland's Eastern Shore. This 70 by 140 mile territory contains almost 6,200 miles of distribution lines. In 2001, they were ranked the 11th largest energy company in the state of Maryland. Choptank Electric Cooperative is a Touchstone Energy Cooperative and a member of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, a generation and transmission cooperative serving 11 member distribution cooperatives in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.
History.
Choptank Cooperative, Inc. was formed on September 21, 1938 after the Rural Electrification Act was passed. Its first electric distribution lines were energized on December 15, 1939 in Caroline County. The cooperative was instrumental in the effort to provide electric power to the rural areas of Maryland's Eastern Shore. In 1942, the name was changed to Choptank Electric Cooperative. The cooperative joined Old Dominion Electric Cooperative in 1976 to get lower costs for wholesale electricity.
On October 15, 2006, Choptank Electric Cooperative acquired the municipally-owned St. Michaels Electric Utility, which served 4,000 customers in the town of St. Michaels and surrounding areas, for $12.2 million. The St. Michaels Electric Utility had been operated and maintained by Delmarva Power under a lease agreement from 1981 to 2006. On September 19, 2006, residents of Berlin voted in favor of selling the Berlin Electric Utility Department to Choptank Electric Cooperative, a move supported by the mayor and town council because of the utility's debt and high rates but opposed by the Berlin Utility Commission because of the feared loss of revenue. Under this arrangement, Choptank Electric Cooperative would have taken over the distribution system while Old Dominion Electric Cooperative would have taken over the town's power plant. The sale fell through in 2007 after Old Dominion Electric Cooperative backed out of the deal because it felt the town's power plant did not meet the environmental standard for a residential area; Choptank Electric Cooperative soon backed out too.


Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative

The Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative (SMECO) is an electric distribution cooperative which is headquartered in Hughesville, Maryland, United States. SMECO serves approximately 161,000 customers in Calvert, Charles, Prince George's, and St. Mary's counties of southern Maryland. Under its rules as a nonprofit cooperative, SMECO passes on its costs to its customer-members without markup or profit.
History.
In 1937 two committees of citizens from three counties which were seeking aid to construct a local rural electric distribution system under the New Deal's Rural Electrictrification Administration formed the Southern Maryland Tri-County Electric Cooperative Association. This was reorganized as a cooperative under the SMECO name in 1942. Customers were allowed to select suppliers of electricity beginning in 2001 under the Maryland Electric Deregulation legislation enacted in 1999. From 2007 to 2011, SMECO has won the J.D. Power and Associates award for best customer service for a midsize utility.
SMECO owned a 77 MW gas turbine generator located at the Chalk Point Generating Station which began operation in 1990 and was operated and maintained by NRG Energy. In 2015 NRG acquired the turbine plant from SMECO.
FERC solar complaint.
SMECO has filed a complaint with the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), alleging that the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) coerced utilities into purchasing excess solar power generated by the state's community solar program at much higher retail rates rather than paying the amount it would have cost these utilities to create the power themselves, also known as the avoided cost. This would be in violation with the federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), which establishes that any payment given to such qualifying power plants equate the utility's avoided cost. In addition, PURPA mandates that these plants do not exceed 80 MW of power.
Recently, the development of community solar programs has become increasingly prevalent in order to meet the ever-growing demand for new, viable energy sources; however, there has been much controversy regarding the surge in net metering consumers due to the resulting cost shifts which negatively affect the non-solar community now facing much higher payments to even out the increased benefits given to solar projects.
Because of the continual reduction in the cost of power, FERC has become more concerned with the discrepancy between avoided costs and wholesale prices, which continue to prevail. This has placed more focus on PURPA's roles and responsibilities in the maintenance and balance of the current energy market.


Grid-connected photovoltaic power system

A grid-connected photovoltaic system, or grid-connected PV system is an electricity generating solar PV power system that is connected to the utility grid. A grid-connected PV system consists of solar panels, one or several inverters, a power conditioning unit and grid connection equipment. They range from small residential and commercial rooftop systems to large utility-scale solar power stations. Unlike stand-alone power systems, a grid-connected system rarely includes an integrated battery solution, as they are still very expensive. When conditions are right, the grid-connected PV system supplies the excess power, beyond consumption by the connected load, to the utility grid.
Operation.
Residential, grid-connected rooftop systems which have a capacity more than 10 kilowatts can meet the load of most consumers. They can feed excess power to the grid where it is consumed by other users. The feedback is done through a meter to monitor power transferred. Photovoltaic wattage may be less than average consumption, in which case the consumer will continue to purchase grid energy, but a lesser amount than previously. If photovoltaic wattage substantially exceeds average consumption, the energy produced by the panels will be much in excess of the demand. In this case, the excess power can yield revenue by selling it to the grid. Depending on their agreement with their local grid energy company, the consumer only needs to pay the cost of electricity consumed less the value of electricity generated. This will be a negative number if more electricity is generated than consumed. Additionally, in some cases, cash incentives are paid from the grid operator to the consumer.
Connection of the photovoltaic power system can be done only through an interconnection agreement between the consumer and the utility company. The agreement details the various safety standards to be followed during the connection.
Features.
Electric power from photovoltaic panels must be converted to alternating current by a power inverter if it is intended for delivery to a power grid. The inverter sits between the solar array and the grid, and may be a large stand-alone unit or may be a collection of small inverters attached to individual solar panels as an AC module. The inverter must monitor grid voltage, waveform, and frequency. The inverter must detect failure of the grid supply and must not supply power to the grid. An inverter connected to a malfunctioning power line will automatically disconnect in accordance with safety rules, which vary by jurisdiction. The location of the fault current plays a crucial part in deciding whether the protection mechanism of the inverter will kick in, especially for low and medium electricity supply network. A protection system must ensure proper operation for faults external to the inverter on the supply network. The inverter must be designed to synchronize its AC frequency with the grid, to ensure correct direction of power flow.
Anti-islanding.
Islanding is the condition in which a distributed generator continues to power a location even though power from the electric utility grid is no longer present. Islanding can be dangerous to utility workers, who may not realize that a circuit is still powered, even though there is no power from the electrical grid. For that reason, distributed generators must detect islanding and immediately stop producing power; this is referred to as anti-islanding.
In the case of a utility blackout in a grid-connected PV system, the solar panels will continue to deliver power as long as the sun is shining. In this case, the supply line becomes an "island" with power surrounded by a "sea" of unpowered lines. For this reason, solar inverters that are designed to supply power to the grid are generally required to have automatic anti-islanding circuitry in them. In intentional islanding, the generator disconnects from the grid, and forces the distributed generator to power the local circuit. This is often used as a power backup system for buildings that normally sell their power to the grid.
There are two types of anti-islanding control techniques:


Solar power in Pakistan

Pakistan has some of the highest values of insolation in the world, with eight to nine hours of sunshine per day, ideal climatic conditions for solar power generation.
However, the country has been slow to adopt the technology.
The country has solar plants in Pakistani Kashmir, Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan.
Initiatives are under development by the International Renewable Energy Agency, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, Chinese companies, and Pakistani private sector energy companies.
The country aims to build the world's largest solar power park, the Quaid-e-Azam Solar Power Park (QASP) in the Cholistan Desert, Punjab, by 2017 with a 1 GW capacity.
A plant of this size would be enough to power around 320,000 homes.
Projects.
Introduction of Clean Energy by Solar Electricity Generation System.
On May 29, 2012, Pakistan inaugurated its first solar power on-grid power plant in Islamabad. Introduction of Clean Energy by Solar Electricity Generation System is a special grant aid project by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) under the Coolio Earth Partnership. This project includes the installation of two 178kW photovoltaic (PV) systems at the premises of the Planning Commission and Pakistan Engineering Council.
This is the first on-grid solar PV project that employs net-metering, thereby allowing the beneficiaries to sell surplus electricity to the Islamabad Electric Supply Company (IESCO), the electricity distribution company of the Islamabad Division. The project was executed with grant assistance, worth 480 million Yen (approx. 553.63 million Pakistani Rupees) over three years commencing in 2010.
Other projects.
Beaconhouse installed the first high quality integrated solar energy system with a 10kW power generation capacity capable of grid tie-in at Beaconhouse Canal Side Campus, Lahore. It was a pilot project for BSS designed by U.S. consultants, based upon feasibility by the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA).
50 to 100 MW of photovoltaics is expected to be installed in 2013, and at least 300MW in 2014. In May 2015, 100 MW of a planned 1,000 MW were installed in the Quaid-e-Azam Solar Park.
AEDB is pursuing 22 solar PV power projects of cumulative capacity of approximately 890.80 MW.
1. The following Six (06) solar power projects of 430 MW capacity are operational;
2. Four (04) IPPs with a cumulative capacity of 41.80 MW have obtained Letter of Support (LOS) from AEDB and are in the process of achieving Financial Closing of their projects
3. Twelve (12) Solar PV power projects of 419 MW cumulative capacity have obtained LOI from AEDB and are at different stages of project development. As per the CCoE decisions, these 12 projects are required to participate in the upcoming competitive bidding to be carried out by AEDB.
Annual solar irradiation.
Solar irradiance in Pakistan is 5.3 kWh/m2/day. Pakistan set a target to add approximately 10 GW of renewable capacity by 2030 in addition to replacing 5% diesel with biodiesel by 2015 and 10% by 2025.
Progress of Net-Metering in Pakistan.
The progress of Net-Metering in Pakistan up to March 31, 2021 is 181.27MW.
Government policy.
Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, former Federal Minister of Water & Power announced on July 2, 2009 that 7,000 villages would be electrified using solar energy by 2014. Senior adviser Sardar Zulfiqar Khosa stated that the Punjab government would begin new projects aimed at power production through coal, solar energy and wind power; this would generate additional resources.
The Government of Pakistan allowed the provincial government of Sindh to conduct feasibility research. The government planned to install a desalination plant powered by solar energy.


CenterPoint Energy

CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is an American Fortune 500 electric and natural gas utility serving several markets in the American states of Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas. It was formerly known as Reliant Energy (from which it is now separated), NorAm Energy, Houston Industries, and HL&P. The company is headquartered in the CenterPoint Energy Tower at 1111 Louisiana Street in Downtown Houston. Some of its notable subscribers include Retail Electric Providers (REPs), such as NRG Energy, Champion Energy, Eligo Energy, Dynowatt, Ambit Energy, Texas Power, Bounce Energy, MXenergy, Direct Energy, Stream Energy, First Texas Energy Corporation, Gexa Energy, Cirro Energy, and Kona Energy.
History.
When the state of Texas deregulated the electricity market, the former Houston Lighting & Power (HL&P) was split into several companies. In 2003 HL&P was split into Reliant Energy, Texas Genco, and CenterPoint Energy.
Until December 15, 2004, CenterPoint Energy and its predecessors operated in its various markets under these names; they were used separately prior to Reliant Energy, and later in conjunction with the Reliant Energy and CenterPoint Energy names:
In late 2004, four private equity firms—the Texas Pacific Group, the Blackstone Group, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, and Hellman & Friedman—combined forces to purchase Texas Genco from Centerpoint. Later in 2006, Texas Genco was sold to NRG Energy of Princeton, N.J.
On April 23, 2018 CenterPoint Energy and Vectren Corporation announced they have entered into a definitive merger agreement.
Hurricane Ike caused great disruption of service in the Greater Houston Area, wiping out 2.1 million of CenterPoint Energy's 2.26 million clients' electricity. This was the largest power outage in the company's 130-year history, and the largest in the state's history.
In March 2009, the company’s five-year smart meter deployment began, delivering enhanced smart meter functionality to Retail Electric Providers (REPs).
The company worked with the Department of Energy for a pilot program in Texas centered on energy consumption. After working with 500-residential electricity customers in the Houston area, it was found that by using a smart meter, consumers cut down on energy use for the home. The pilot program was funded in part by the $200 million it received from the federal stimulus act.
Electric vehicles
In 2010, CenterPoint Energy and Ford Motor Company formed a partnership to promote adoption of electric vehicles. The two companies teamed up to work together to create electric vehicle consumer outreach and education programs; they also distributed details to various stakeholders about charging needs and the requirements needed to "ensure the electrical infrastructure can support the necessary demand." Additionally: "The Ford and CenterPoint Energy collaboration also includes developing strategies to minimize the emissions and distribution impacts of charging electric vehicles by using statewide system renewable energy resources and more efficient use of household electricity."
2021 power outages.
At 1:25 a.m. on February 15, 2021, due to a major cold-weather event affecting the state of Texas, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) declared a statewide power emergency, due to a 34,000 MW shortfall in generation causing widespread blackouts. At around 1:30 a.m., CenterPoint Energy started the rolling blackouts around the Houston area. At first, the company said that the blackouts are expected to last 10 to 45 minutes, but soon updated its statement that customers who are experiencing an outage should be prepared to be without power for the rest of Monday.
However, because of the outages in the Houston area, CenterPoint Energy's outage map crashed, and was later restored at around 7 to 9 p.m. the same day.
At around midnight on February 16, CenterPoint Energy was able to restart the process of rolling the outages around, but was forced to stop due to another ERCOT order because some generation units (around the Houston area) have tripped offline. However, the company was able to do the same process around 1 p.m. the same day.
Criticism.
On December 16, 2005, CenterPoint Energy Inc. said it would restate its finances for 2004 and the first three quarters of 2005 to correct accounting errors that overstated revenue and natural gas expenses.
In December 2011, the non-partisan organization Public Campaign criticized CenterPoint Energy for spending $2.65 million on lobbying and not paying any taxes during 2008-2010, instead getting $284 million in tax rebates, despite making a profit of $1.9 billion, and having an executive pay between $12 and $13 million for its top 5 executives.


Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited


Power Distribution Services Ghana

Power Distribution Services Ghana formerly "Electricity Company of Ghana" is an electricity distribution company in Ghana. The company's operation covers about thirty percent of the total land mass of the country. Formerly as a public company, its operations were under the Ministry of Energy of Ghana. Together with Northern Electricity Distribution Company, they supply all of Ghana's electricity demands as well as some other West African countries. PDS took over ECG on 1 March 2019.
The company has initiated many periods of load shedding which have increased in recent times and gained traction in popular culture under the term dumsor.


Generation II reactor

A generation II reactor is a design classification for a nuclear reactor, and refers to the class of commercial reactors built until the end of the 1990s. Prototypical and older versions of PWR, CANDU, BWR, AGR, RBMK and VVER are among them.
These are contrasted to reactors, which refer to the early prototype of power reactors, such as Shippingport, Magnox/UNGG, AMB, Fermi 1, and Dresden 1. The last commercial Gen I power reactor was located at the Wylfa Nuclear Power Station and ceased operation at the end of 2015. The nomenclature for reactor designs, describing four 'generations', was proposed by the US Department of Energy when it introduced the concept of generation IV reactors.
The designation "generation II+ reactor" is sometimes used for modernized generation II designs built post-2000, such as the Chinese CPR-1000, in competition with more expensive generation III reactor designs. Typically, the modernization includes improved safety systems and a 60-year design life.
Generation II reactor designs generally had an original design life of 30 or 40 years. This date was set as the period over which loans taken out for the plant would be paid off. However, many generation II reactors are being life-extended to 50 or 60 years, and a second life-extension to 80 years may also be economic in many cases. By 2013 about 75% of still operating U.S. reactors had been granted life extension licenses to 60 years.
Chernobyl's No.4 reactor that exploded was a generation II reactor, specifically RBMK-1000.
Fukushima Daiichi's three destroyed reactors were generation II reactors; specifically Mark I Boiling water reactors (BWR) designed by General Electric.
In 2016, unit 2 at the Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station came online and is likely to be the last generation II reactor to become operational in the United States.


FS Class E.570


Hot spot (photovoltaics)

In a photovoltaic (PV) module, a hot spot describes an over proportional heating of a single solar cell or a cell part compared to the surrounding cells. It is a typical degradation mode in PV modules.
Origin.
Hot spots can origin, if one solar cell, or just a part of it, produces less carrier compared to the other cells connected in series. This may occur due to partially shading, dirt on the module (leaf, bird drop) or cell mismatches. The less producing part is only able to pass current corresponding to its own amount of carrier. Additional carrier, produced in the other cells, accumulate at the cell edges, which leads to a reversed bias of the affected cell. Thus, it works like a resistor and the voltage drop is transferred into heat.
Detection and prevention.
Quick detection is possible with infrared camera, performing thermography imaging. A hot spot can also lead to browning in the glass plane of the PV module, if it is present for long time. Thus, the hot spot can become visible for the human eye.
To prevent emergence of hot spots, the different causes have to be considered. Cell mismatches are prevented by measuring the maximum power point of produced cells and then combining similar cells into one module. To ensure a homogeneous irradiation on the module, shadow-casting structures are considered and avoided during PV plant construction. And to avoid severe damage from dirt, periodic cleaning is necessary. Finally, bypass diodes are integrated in PV modules to shortcut a cell string, if the voltage drop becomes too high.


Transmission service request

In the electric power industry, a transmission service request is an application requesting a transmission-owning utility to allocate physical capacity in the form of transmission service rights (TSRs) for the transmission of electric power. Every TSR includes at least three components: 1) a point of delivery (POD), where the power is injected into the utility's transmission network; 2) a point of receipt (POR), where the power is withdrawn from the utility's transmission network; 3) the amount of power, or capacity, in megawatts to be reserved. In order to receive TSR, a transmission customer (TC) must complete a transmission service request and go through a system impact study to determine if the existing transmission facilities can reliably accommodate the physical transfer of the electric power. If the capacity is not available, the transmission customer may decide to pay to upgrade the transmission network.
Background.
Open access to transmission facilities arose from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order 888, issued April 24, 1996. This order required each utility which transmitted electric energy in interstate commerce to file an Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) to stipulate the process for non-discriminatory access to its transmission facilities. This access includes generation interconnection and transmission service. Generation interconnection allows for a power generator to connect to the transmission system while transmission service allows for the delivery of electricity through the transmission system. The goal of open access to electric power transmission facilities is to reduce electricity prices by promoting wholesale competition. In exchange for transmission service, transmitting utilities are allowed to charge the customer costs associated with the access to their transmission network. The cost for TSR is determined by a formula contained in the OATT and is often in the units of dollars per megawatt per year. TSRs are often renewed on an annual basis.
Uses of transmission service rights.
Transmission service rights can be used for multiple purposes. Often, the TSR is used to facilitate two parties to arrange a power purchase agreement by transferring power from a generator to a load through the utility's transmission facilities. A few of the many potential scenarios where TSRs would be necessary:
TSR is often pursued when it is either the lowest cost option or is necessary to meet a renewable portfolio standard.


Wind power in Australia

Wind power is one of the main renewable energy sources in Australia and contributed 8.1% of electricity supplied in 2019, with 35.4% of total renewable energy supply.
Australia has excellent conditions for harvesting wind power with abundant wind resources located close to population centres in the southern parts of the country and on the slopes of the Great Dividing Range in the east.
As of December 2019, there was 6,279 megawatt (MW) of installed wind power capacity and a further 21,845 MW of capacity was proposed or committed to the electricity sector in Australia as of February 2020.
At the end of 2019 there were 101 wind farms in Australia, most of which had turbines from 1.5 to 3 MW. In addition, 30 projects with a combined installed capacity of more than 5,500 MW are either under construction or committed to be built in 2020/21 having reached financial closure.
Wind resources.
Australia has excellent wind resources by world standards. The southern coastline lies in the roaring forties and many sites have average wind speeds above 8 or even 9 m/s at turbine hub height. The southwest of Western Australia, southern South Australia, western Victoria, northern Tasmania and elevated areas of New South Wales and Queensland have good wind resources.
Several states engaged in systematic wind speed monitoring in the 1980s and 1990s, the results of which are publicly available. Most of these locations are located within close proximity to Australia's main population centres making wind power a convenient resource for electricity generation.
Australian wind farms produce on average capacity factors of 30–35%, making wind an attractive option. South Australia's large share (along with nearby Victoria) means most of Australia's wind power occurs around the same time. The correlation between South Australia and NSW is 0.34, whereas the correlation between South Australia and Tasmania is 0.10.
Wind farms.
As at the end of 2019 there were 101 wind farms in Australia, totalling 6,279 MW in capacity.
The largest wind farm is Coopers Gap Wind Farm in Queensland, which began generating to the grid in June 2019, with a capacity of 453 MW. As of December 2019, 50 of the Coopers Gap Wind Farm's 123 turbines were operational.
By generating capacity, the ten largest wind farms in Australia are:
Australia's first commercial wind farm, Salmon Beach Wind Farm near Esperance in Western Australia operated for 15 years from 1987, but was decommissioned due to urban encroachment; it has been replaced by Ten Mile Lagoon Wind Farm and Nine Mile Beach Wind Farm.
Wind power by state.
A full listing of all the wind farms in Australia, can be found in List of wind farms in Australia. Relevant state articles are:
The following figures are based on capacity and generation as at the end of 2019. Proposed figures are updated to March 2020.
South Australia provided 29.2% of Australia's wind power in 2019, accounting for 41% of the state's electricity needs in 2019. By the end of 2011 wind power in South Australia reached 26% of the State's electricity generation, edging out coal-fired power for the first time. At that stage South Australia, with only 7.2% of Australia's population, had 54% of Australia's installed wind capacity.
Victoria also has a substantial system, which provided 27.8% of Australia's wind power in 2019. In August 2015, the Victorian government announced financial backing for new wind farms as part of a push to encourage renewable energy in the state, which was expected to bring forward the building of a modest 100 MW of new wind energy in the state, worth $200 million in investment. The government expected that there were about 2400 MW worth of Victorian projects that had been approved but were yet to be built.
Installed capacity (nameplate) is the theoretical maximum capacity of the engineered design in perfect operating conditions. The accepted AEMO rating is the capacity factor rating which amounts to 30 to 35 percent of installed/nameplate capacity. And then depending on wind turbine location there is a loss of energy in the feeder transmission line (depending on length) leading to the main electricity grid.
Competitiveness of wind power.
Making comparisons between wind and other sources of energy can be difficult because of the cost profiles associated with wind developments. The vast majority of the costs associated with wind developments are upfront capital costs. The operating costs are relatively low but there are maintenance costs including replacement of various components subject to wear, with each additional unit of wind power costing very little to produce. By comparison, conventional gas and coal developments have large capital costs, as well as significant operating costs. Conventional coal and gas fired power stations have more than double the accountable working life compared to wind turbines, and properly maintained could continue to be operated for three times the wind turbine life or longer. The difference in cost profiles creates difficulties when trying to compare the cost of alternative energy sources.
Despite these complexities, most of the data indicate that wind energy is one of the most cost efficient sources of renewable energy but approximately two times the cost of coal generated power in 2006. When the costs associated with pollution are factored in it was competitive with coal- and gas-fired power stations even then. By 2014, wind had the lowest levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of any power source in Australia.
A 2012 study by SKM on the economic benefits of wind farms in Australia found that, for every 50 MW in capacity, a wind farm delivered the following benefits:
Environmental impact.
Australia is the fifth highest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases with 25.8 tonne CO2-e per person annually, ranking first of the industrialized countries, and ranks sixteenth of all countries in total country emissions with 495 Mt CO2-e per annum. It is one of the major exporters of coal, the burning of which releases CO2 into the atmosphere. It is also one of the countries most at risk from climate change according to the Stern report. This is partially because of the size of its agriculture sector and long coastline.
A wind farm, when installed on agricultural land, has one of the lowest environmental impacts of all energy sources:
Landscape and heritage issues may be a significant issue for certain wind farms. However, these are minimal when compared with the Environmental effects of coal. However, when appropriate planning procedures are followed, the heritage and landscape risks should be minimal. Some people may still object to wind farms, perhaps on the grounds of aesthetics, but their concerns should be weighed against the need to address the threats posed by climate change and the opinions of the broader community.
Overseas experience has shown that community consultation and direct involvement of the general public in wind farm projects has helped to increase community approval. Some wind farms become tourist attractions.
The Garnaut Climate Change Review, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the Mandatory Renewable energy Target announced by the Australian Government involve a reduction in Australian greenhouse gas emissions. Australia is the highest emitter of greenhouse gases per capita in the developed world and wind power is well placed to grow and deliver greenhouse gas emission cuts on a cost competitive basis. A typical 50-megawatt (MW) wind farm in Australia can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by between 65,000 and 115,000 tonnes a year.
Based on the 2010 figures for electricity production of 5 TWh nationally, it is estimated that wind power saved Australia 5,100,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions in that year. In relative terms, that is calculated to be the equivalent of removing 1,133,000 cars from the nation's roads.
Politics of wind power.
From 2001 to early 2006, the main driving force for the establishment of wind farms in Australia was the Government's Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET). However, by mid-2006, sufficient renewable energy had been installed or was under construction to meet the small MRET target for 2010. Also, in 2006, several Federal Government Ministers spoke out against a number of wind farm proposals.
Mark Diesendorf has suggested that the Australian Government has tried to stop the development of wind power, the lowest-cost, new, renewable electricity source, until such time as coal-fired power stations with CO2 capture and sequestration and possibly nuclear power stations were available. However, "clean coal" technologies may not be commercially available for at least 20 years. Furthermore, to bring down the high cost of nuclear power to a level where it could compete with wind power would require a new generation of nuclear power stations that is still on the drawing board, which could take at least 15 years.
In November 2007 when the Rudd (Labor) government was elected in Australia, it ratified Australia's commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, promised a target of 20% renewable power by 2020 and to do more to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, several new wind power projects were proposed in anticipation of an expanded MRET.
Major wind power companies.
AGL Energy.
AGL operates some of the largest wind farms in the Southern Hemisphere.
Meridian Energy.
Meridian Energy is a New Zealand state-owned enterprise and New Zealand's largest electricity generator. It specialises in renewable energy, namely hydroelectricity and windpower, and has 2353 MW of hydroelectric generation and 357 MW of wind generation in New Zealand. It has in recent years expanded into Australia, and its Australian operations are currently focused on windpower. Projects completed or currently being developed include:
Goldwind Australia.
Established in 2009, Goldwind Australia offers wind power solutions, including investment, construction, and operational and maintenance services. Some are Permanent magnet Direct-Drive (PMDD) turbines. Major projects include:
Pacific Hydro.
Pacific Hydro is an Australian company that specialises in electricity generation using renewable energy. Its focus is on hydroelectricity and windpower. Wind power stations owned by Pacific Hydro include:
Hydro Tasmania.
Hydro Tasmania is based in Tasmania and has three wind farms operating in Australia: Woolnorth Wind Farm in northwest Tasmania, Musselroe Wind Farm in the northeast of Tasmania and Cathedral Rocks Wind Farm in South Australia.
Suzlon.
Suzlon Energy Australia Pty. Ltd. (SEA), is based in Melbourne, and is a subsidiary of Suzlon Energy, an Indian multinational based in Pune, India. Suzlon will install 45 units of its S88 – 2.1-megawatt wind turbines for AGL at the Hallett Wind Farm to be located on the Brown Hill Range, which is situated approximately 220 kilometers north of Adelaide.
TrustPower.
TrustPower is a New Zealand-based renewable electricity generator. It operates a number of hydroelectric schemes in New Zealand and several wind farms in New Zealand and Australia. Wind farms in Australia include Snowtown Wind Farm in South Australia.
Wind Prospect.
Wind Prospect undertakes all aspects of wind energy development, including design, construction, operation and commercial services, with offices in the UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and China. With over 18 years of successful development within the industry, the Wind Prospect Group has been involved in over 2,500 MW of approved wind farms, including onshore and offshore projects, in terms of development, construction, operations and commercial services, and has a further 4000 MW in the early phase of development. The company’s civil, electrical and mechanical engineers have been involved in the commissioning of over 50 wind farms around the world.
Wind Prospect’s development offices in Australia are in Adelaide, Newcastle, Brisbane and Melbourne. Wind Prospect Pty Ltd (WPPL) is the most successful developer in Australia, having achieved planning approval for 10 wind farms totalling over 860 MW, of which 565 MW is operating or under construction. Two recent successes in South Australia are the North Brown Hill Wind Farm (132.3 MW) and The Bluff Range Wind Farm (52.1 MW), both approximately 270 km north east of Adelaide, which are Wind Prospect’s sixth and seventh wind farm developments respectively to progress to construction in South Australia. More projects in this region have received planning approval and are expected to proceed to construction.
Windlab.
Windlab Systems is an Australian company with operations in the USA, Canada and South Africa. It was established in 2003 as a CSIRO spin-off. The company uses self developed technologies, Windscape which is based on CSIRO’s atmospheric modelling technology and advanced wind monitoring tools, to undertake a program of site identification, site validation and wind farm development. Approximately 1,500 MW of projects in Australia have used Windlab intellectual property for site identification purposes. The company co-developed the Oakland's Hill (67 MW) wind farm and the Collgar Wind Farm (206 MW). With incentives from the ACT large scale feed-in tariff, Windlab is building the Coonooer Bridge Wind Farm, located North West of Bendigo, Victoria. This project is jointly owned by Windlab Limited, Eurus Energy and landholders neighbouring the project and has 6 turbines generating up to 19.4 MW. From 2017, Windlab will begin building the Kiata Wind Farm, a 30MW wind energy project located 50 km North West of Horsham, Victoria. Windlab is also developing the Kennedy energy park in North Queensland near Townsville, in two stages: Up to 40 - 50 MW of wind and 40 - 50 MW of solar in the first phase and up to 600 MW of wind and 600 MW of solar in the second phase. Windlab has since become a full wind farm developer and takes projects to the point of construction.
Infigen Energy.
Infigen Energy is a developer, owner and operator of renewable generation, specifically wind and solar power within Australia and the United States. Its head office is in Sydney. The company has developed several wind farms particularly in South Australia and New South Wales with further proposed wind farms in Western Australia and Victoria.


Motukawa Power Station

The Motukawa Power Station is a hydroelectric power facility in Taranaki in New Zealand which makes use of water from the Manganui River and Waitara River catchments. Water is drawn from behind a weir on the Manganui River near Tariki and diverts this water through a race to Lake Ratapiko and then through penstocks to the Motukawa Power Station. The power station discharges into the Mākara Stream, a tributary of the Waitara River.
History.
Development.
Of the first 14 publicly available electricity supplies in New Zealand, seven were in the province of Taranaki. Most of these were hydroelectric schemes, utilising the seasonally consistent water supply provided by Mount Taranaki’s many streams. These development was driven by the demand for electric lighting by both town and rural dwellers plus farmers wishing to power their new electric shearing sheds, milking machines and separator.
Stratford (1898), Patea (1902), Hāwera (1903), Inglewood (1904), Waitara (1905) and New Plymouth (1906) had been early adopters of electricity but Eltham lagged behind.
In May 1919 a meeting was held in Eltham to discuss the feasibility of obtaining a supply of electric power for Eltham Borough and the surrounding districts. This meeting eventually led to the establishment of the Taranaki Electric Power Board which held its first meeting on 7 August 1922. At first the new power board sought to obtain its power from New Plymouth but after it was found that this would not immediately available they held a competition to design a power station in their area. The winner was Henry ("Harry") Richmond Climie of consulting engineers H.W. Climie and Son. In April 1923 the Taranaki Electric Power Board agreed to go ahead with this scheme which would take advantage of most of the natural 122-metre fall in elevation on the Manganui River near Tariki and the Waitara River near Motukawa.
Once construction started on what became the Motukawa scheme the Stratford Borough Council asked to be connected to the supply once the station was generating.
Construction.
Construction commenced in 1923.
The first step was the building and commissioning of a weir in 1924 on the Manganui River near Tariki from which water was taken to power a small generator to provide power for the construction of the main scheme with surplus electricity being made available to a few local farmers.
To provide temporary power during construction a 200 kVA hydro generator was installed in 1924 at the headworks near Tariki. The generator had sufficient spare capacity that a few nearby farmers were able to receive an electrical supply. The remains of this unit still exist today.
The scheme required the water be conveyed across swampland at Ratapiko. It was intended that this would be by canal with part via a two-metre-high () tunnel, which meant going through mud, peat and buried logs. The decaying peat made it necessary before commencing work each day for a build-up of marsh gas. After repeated partial collapses and then a complete collapse of the tunnel it was decided to opt for a canal instead of a tunnel for the remainder of the route. While the rest of the twenty men employed to build the tunnel was moved to other work or dismissed, two men were kept on to construct the canal out of the collapsed tunnel by using a powerful pump to sluice out the swampy soil and explosives to remove the timber that had been used to store up the tunnel and buried tree stumps.
To bore the tunnel from the lake to the site of the surge chamber in the Waitara valley, a tunnelling machine was purchased from Sir William Arrol and Co. of Glasgow. This was shipped on the SS "Waimana" in 12 cases and arrived in New Zealand in January 1924. This is believed to have been the earliest use of a tunnelling machine in New Zealand.
In April 1924, the cases were transported from Inglewood to the site with assembly commencing in May 1924. Delays then occurred through June and July with trying to adjust and operate it due to what was identified as poor workmanship by the manufacturer. Wrong cutters had also been sent and replacements requested, which upon arrival were found to be of such poor quality that new ones had to be manufactured in New Zealand.
These delays meant that it wasn't until 15 September 1924 that a start was made on driving the tunnel from the surge chamber already excavated at the downstream end. The initial average speed of cutting through the papa rock (a Māori-derived term for blue-grey mudstone), was one metre per hour with a maximum advance of 1.5 metres per hour, including all stops. Unfortunately, large boulders were soon encountered, sometimes every 1.5 metres, which all had to be excavated by hand. The largest boulder was 7.6 m long.
In November 1925, after 2,080 metres of the tunnel had been excavated the ground conditions changed to an overlaying silt-like material with the overlying country being swamp. Before it could be shored up with timber, the tunnel caved in over the machine, filling the tunnel for 80 metres, with fortunately no loss of life. It was then necessary to excavate the whole crater which formed in the swamp 18 metres above the collapsed tunnel. A shaft was sunk and then shored up with timber so that the tunnelling machine could be brought out through it.
Further work on the tunnel was carried out by hand using heavy timbering until by May 1926, the faulty section of the tunnel had been concrete lined. The section of the tunnel that passed rock was shotcrete lined. The tunnel was finally completed on 23 August 1926.
A shaft was constructed at the upstream end of the tunnel to allow the tunnelling machine to be removed, a task which was accomplished by May 1926. With no further need for the tunnelling machine the Power Board offered it for sale. While some auxiliary equipment was sold (such as the cement gun and air compressor) the machine itself ended up being utilised as a source of parts for other activities undertaken by the Power Board.
The cost of the scheme more than doubled compared with the original estimate, which required the power board to introduce an availability rate for four years. This was applied to customers living within 201 metres (10 chains) of a supply line to offset some of the costs.
Commissioning.
The first generator at Motukawa Power Station came into operation on 9 January 1927, with the last of the three units commissioned in 1938.
Stratford received its first supply from Motukawa by 1930, with Inglewood taking supply by 1933 and Waitara by 1934.
1970 upgrade.
To increase the station output the original , steel, riveted penstock was replaced in 1970 by spiral-welded penstock. The original designers had made provision for the installation of an additional penstock which allowed the changeover of the penstocks to be effected with minimum interruption to supply.
Changes in ownership.
As a result of the restructuring of the New Zealand electricity sector in the early 1990s the Taranaki Electric Power Board merged with the electricity department of the New Plymouth City Council (trading as New Plymouth Energy) on 7 May 1993 to form Taranaki Energy Ltd.
In 1995 Taranaki Energy Ltd merged with Powerco.
The introduction of the Electricity Industry Reform Act in 1998 required New Zealand's electricity companies to separate their network and retail businesses. As a result, Powerco having elected to remain a network company sold its five power stations (which including Motukawa) to Trustpower.
Improvements.
In 2005 Trustpower installed a weir and a 200 kW in-race generator in the canal, adjacent to the Mangaotea Road to take advantage of the natural fall in the canal system. In 2007 pumps were installed to lift water about four metres up out of the Mangaotea Stream to contribute extra flow into the canal and hence through the generators. These improvements added to the scheme's power output.
Design.
The Motukawa scheme makes use of 99 metres of an available 122-metre difference in elevation between the Manganui River near Tariki and the Waitara River near Motukawa to drive three generators located in the powerhouse, plus an in-race generator in the canal which runs between the headworks and Lake Ratapiko.
Headworks.
Water is diverted from the upper reaches of the Manganui River by a weir with a fish pass located about four kilometres from the junction of State Highway 3 and Tariki Road.
Up to 5,200 litres per sec of water is allowed to be taken, with the amount of water being diverted from the weir managed by two motorised control gates down a short canal into a settling pond. From this pond the water goes along a five kilometre canal which includes two tunnels and an aqueduct across the Mangaotea Stream before entering Lake Ratapiko.
A resource consent requires that a residual flow of no less than 400 L/s is maintained in the Manganui River below the weir at all times in order to provide for the passage of fish and maintain a reasonable water quality in the Manganui River downstream of the weir. This residual flow is to be passed through a fish pass.
Lake Ratapiko.
The canal discharges into the shallow manmade Lake Ratapiko which was created by constructing a earth dam across the Mako Stream, which is a tributary of the Makino Stream. The 21-hectare lake is approximately three kilometres long and has an average depth of 2.5 metres with many shallow sections. The lake level is only allowed to vary by one metre when generating electricity. As well as providing storage for the Motukawa Power Station the lake is available for recreation and is used for power boat racing and water skiing.
Tunnel.
From the lake, the water runs via a forebay structure into a , tunnel which conveys it to a , surge chamber, located in the hill above the power station. A welded-steel penstock takes the water from the surge chamber to the powerhouse. The powerhouse is accessed from Motukawa Rd, Ratapiko, Inglewood.
The generators in the power station discharge into the Mākara Stream, a tributary of the Waitara River.
Operation.
Operation of the power station is covered by a total of 23 resource consents, which include a total of 186 conditions. These were obtained in 2001 and will expire in June 2022.
Eel and fish are not able to pass through the scheme. However, there's a successful trap and transfer programme for longfin eel, supporting the species’ migration.
The power station is embedded in Powerco's network behind Transpower's Huriangi Substation.
The power station is operated remotely via a SCADA system from Trustpower's control centre in Tauranga.


Robert Alfred Theobald

Robert Alfred Theobald (January 25, 1884 – May 13, 1956), nicknamed "Fuzzy", was a United States Navy officer who served in World War I and World War II, and achieved the rank of rear admiral. In retirement, he was the author of the 1954 book "The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor: The Washington Background of the Pearl Harbor Attack".
Biography.
Born in San Francisco, California, on January 25, 1884, Theobald attended the University of California in 1902-1903 before entering the United States Naval Academy, from which he graduated ninth in his class in 1907. He was commissioned as an ensign in 1908. His first tour as a commanding officer was of the destroyer in 1915.
World War I.
During World War I, Theobald served as gunnery officer of the battleship , the flagship of Battleship Division Nine, which served with the British Grand Fleet in 1917–1918. He received promotion to commander in September 1918.
Interwar years.
Theobald served as executive officer of the Naval Postgraduate School from 1919 to 1921, then spent the years 1922 through 1924 serving in Destroyer Command, United States Asiatic Fleet, before returning to the School to serve as its commanding officer from 1924 to 1927. He then spent two years as the executive officer of the battleship , before studying in the senior class of the Naval War College.
In 1930, Theobald served as secretary of war plans at the Department of the Navy and as a member of the Joint Army-Navy Planning Committee. In February 1932 he received promotion to captain, and was Chief of Staff, Destroyers, United States Pacific Fleet from 1932 to 1934. He was a member of the advanced class at the Naval War College, engaged in a seminar study of "Japan and Pacific War" in 1934–1935, and was then put in charge of the College's Strategy Division.
In 1937 Theobald was appointed commanding officer of the battleship , then served as Chief of Staff to Admiral Claude C. Bloch, the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Fleet, in 1939. Theobald joined the General Board of the United States Navy early in 1940, and was promoted to rear admiral in June 1940, serving as Commander of Cruiser Division Three and then as Commander of Destroyer Flotilla One in the Pacific Fleet.
World War II.
On the morning of December 7, 1941, twenty ships of Destroyer Flotilla One were moored at Pearl Harbor, Territory of Hawaii, when the Japanese attacked. Theobald, from his temporary flagship, the destroyer tender , was ordered to provide anti-aircraft fire, and sent Destroyer Division Two out of the harbor to establish an off-shore patrol.
Theobald served as Commander of Pacific Fleet Destroyers (ComDesPac) from December 1941 until May 1942 before being appointed Commander of the North Pacific Force (Task Force 8) for operations in the Aleutian Islands in the Territory of Alaska. The Aleutian Islands Campaign began in June 1942 and, after suffering minor defeats against Japanese naval forces, including the Japanese capture of the islands of Attu and Kiska, Theobald was replaced by Rear Admiral Thomas C. Kinkaid.
In January 1943 Theobald was appointed Commandant of the First Naval District and of Boston Navy Yard in Boston, Massachusetts. He retired from active service in 1945. For his wartime service for the Allied cause, Theobald was appointed Officer of the Legion of Honour by the Government of France.
Post-World War II.
After World War II, Theobald gained considerable notoriety with his 1954 book "The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor: The Washington Background of the Pearl Harbor Attack", which accused the administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt of suppressing intelligence about the attack in order to bring the United States into the war. Strangely enough, in a unclassified NSA document for officials only, Theobald book was a recommended reading.
Personal life.
Theobold was first married to Helen Reeves Berry (August 24, 1888 - February 23, 1938). They had two children, Robert Theobald Jr. (1910–1989) and Frances Theobald Brainerd (1913–2008). Robert Theobald Jr. was also a graduate of the United States Naval Academy (1931) and achieved the rank of captain in the U.S. Navy.
Theobald married the former Elizabeth Dartnell (August 9, 1909 – January 3, 1996) in 1941.
Death.
Theobald died in Boston, Massachusetts, on May 13, 1956. He is buried with his second wife Elizabeth at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia.
Awards and decorations.
Here is the ribbon bar of Rear Admiral Theobald:
References.
Notes
Bibliography


Operation Sunlag

Operation Sunlag was an Australian military operation in Timor during World War II. Its aim was to investigate what happened to Operation Lagarto.
Background.
On 23 April 1945, Suncharlie operatives, connected to Sunlag, were deployed from , an Australian built Country Craft, some using Hoehn military folboats (collapsible canoes). Although this operation was intended to be for long term intelligence work, they returned to Riversnake on 26 April 1945.
Actions.
On 29 June 1945, the Sunlag party parachuted in from a Liberator from No. 200 Flight RAAF to relieve Lagarto. Captain A.D. Stevenson and Sergeant R.G. Dawson, both of Z Special Unit, and Celestino dos Anjos, a Timorese guide, were parachuted into Timor two days ahead of a proposed supply drop to Operation Lagarto. They observed Sergeant Ellwood, who had been part of Lagarto, as being under guard. He had been missing for some time and was now obviously a captive. A rendezvous on 15–16 July 1945, using "Krait", was unsuccessful. Ellwood and others were finally rescued, together with the Brim party by on 5 August 1945.
On the night of 29–30 June 1945, Stevenson's party landed safely in an area close to the signalled drop zone and made preparations to observe any Japanese intervention and discovered Operation Lagarto had been compromised. Due to problems with their radio set, they were unable to contact Australian. In the meantime, Operation Suncob had been undertaken and its men were captured and killed.
Aftermath.
Dawson, Stevenson and Anjos had to survive pursuing Japanese for five weeks and were successfully rescued. However Dawson died of kidney failure on 10 August 1945 shortly after his return to Australia.


Senlac Hill

Senlac Hill (or Senlac Ridge) is the generally-accepted location in which Harold Godwinson deployed his army for the Battle of Hastings on 14 October 1066. It is located near what is now the town of Battle, East Sussex. The name "Senlac" was popularised by the Victorian historian E.A. Freeman, based solely on a description of the battle by the Anglo-Norman chronicler Orderic Vitalis. Freeman went on to suggest that the Normans nicknamed the area "Blood lake" as a pun on the English "Sand lake".
It is probable that Orderic would have known the English name for "Senlac", as he spent his early life in England since he had been born to an English mother. His education, towards the end of his time in England, was from an English monk. However, Freeman's hypothesis has been criticised by other historians since it relies purely on the evidence from Orderic Vitalis. Orderic was born nine years after the Battle of Hastings, and earlier chroniclers did not use the name "Senlac".
Origin.
The name "Senlac" was introduced into English history by the Victorian historian E.A. Freeman, whose only source for was the Anglo-Norman chronicler Orderic Vitalis. Freeman suggested that Senlac was the correct name of the Battle of Hastings site since the name of the hill was Senlac and was near a stream that was called Santlache. Orderic described Harold's forces as assembling for the battle "ad locum, qui Senlac antiquitus vocabatur" and the battle itself as being fought " in campo Senlac".
Blood lake.
Orderic was born in Atcham, Shropshire, England, the eldest son of a French priest, Odeler of Orléans and an English mother. When Orderic was five, his parents sent him to an English monk with the name of Siward, who kept a school in the Abbey of SS Peter and Paul, at Shrewsbury.
Although Orderic moved to a monastery in Normandy at the age of ten, he seems to have maintained his links with England. Freeman concluded that it was perfectly possible for Orderic to have known the English name of the ridge. The Chronicle of Battle Abbey described what it called "Malfosse", a large ditch that opened up during the course of the battle (some sources say after the battle) in which many soldiers of both sides fell and were trampled to death, the result being "rivulets of blood as far as one could see". In fact, there was a local legend that was maintained for centuries after the battle that the soil in the area turned red after a heavy rainfall.
.."Asten once distained with native English blood;
Whose soil, when yet but wet with any little rain,
Doth blush, as put in mind of those there sadly slain,
When Hastings' harbour gave unto the Norman powers.
Whose name and honours now are denizened for ours.
That boding, ominous brook !"
Freeman suggested that "Senlac" meant "Sand Lake" in Old English, with the Norman conquerors calling it in French "Sanguelac". Freeman regarded that use as a pun because the English translation of "Sanguelac" is "Blood Lake".
The name "Senlac".
Several historians disagreed with the Freeman analysis. John Horace Round published his "Feudal England: Historical Studies on the XIth and XIIth Centuries" in 1895 in which he strongly criticised the Freeman view. He pointed out that "Senlac" was not an English word and was simply a "fad", if not an invention of Orderic Vitalis.
The Norman chroniclers William of Jumièges and William of Poitiers, who were contemporary with the battle, did not record the site of the battle as "Senlac", and the "Chronicle of Battle Abbey simply recorded the location" in Latin as "Bellum" (Battle).
Later documents, however, indicate that the abbey had a tract of land known as "Santlache" (Sandlake) with the name Sandlake continuing for several centuries as a tithing in Battle.
Etymology.
The Anglo-Saxon origin of the name Hastings was probably "Hæsta-inga" (and variations) meaning "clearing of Hæsta's people". However, another possibility, again of Anglo-Saxon origin, is "Asten-enge", meaning "meadow of the Asten" (the Asten is the stream that runs through the battlefield).
Freeman considered what Orderic Vitalis called the battlefield, "Senlac", may have been a corruption of the original Anglo-Saxon name. Other scholars have suggested that the Anglo-Saxon form would have been "scen-leag" meaning "beautiful meadow".
A further possibility of "Senlac" comes from the iron rich sandstone deposits within the local area and the local Wealden iron industry that started before the Roman invasion and carried until the late 170's. The Saxon term "Isen-Lacu", which means "iron pond", is a possibility, and its conversion into Latin changed its spelling. Therefore, Senlac Hill could mean the hill next to the "Iron Pond", and that may be the wrong place for Senlac Hill.


72d Observation Group


Bombing of Nagoya in World War II

The Bombing of Nagoya in World War II by the United States Army Air Forces took place as part of the air raids on Japan during the closing months of the war.
History.
The first strategic bombing attack on Nagoya was on April 18, 1942, as part of the Doolittle Raid. A B-25 bomber targeted the Mitsubishi Aircraft Works, the Matsuhigecho oil warehouse, the Nagoya Castle military barracks, and the Nagoya war industries plant.
The second phase began with precision bombing on December 13, 1944, targeting a Mitsubishi military factory. Four bombers were badly damaged during the mission and had to be abandoned. On December 18, another bombing raid took place, although there was such heavy cloud that the bombers needed to bomb by radar. Japanese fighter aircraft intercepted the attacking bombers and shot down one. On January 3, 1945, there was a general firebombing of the city. On January 14, 1945, Mitsubishi plants were attacked again. On March 11 or 12 (sources vary) and March 19, 1945, there were large air raids and widespread firebombing. On April 7, 1945, another precision bombing attack hit and destroyed most of the Mitsubishi Aircraft Engine Works. On May 14 and 16, 1945, there were large air raids and widespread firebombing that targeted the Mitsubishi factories and other war industries, the arsenal, railroad freight yards, and the seaport. Nagoya Castle, a national treasure which was being used as a military command post, was also hit during the May 14 raid and burned down.
Also during the winter of 1944 and spring of 1945 there were random single-bomber attacks that were used as psychological warfare to disrupt the city and damage the morale of the citizens. It is estimated that 113,460 buildings were destroyed during the raids, with 3,866 people killed and 471,701 driven from their homes. On July 26, 1945 the "Enola Gay" also dropped a conventional "pumpkin bomb" in the Yagoto area of Nagoya as part of a bombing raid to train for the upcoming nuclear bombing mission to Hiroshima.
Nagoya was targeted for incendiary bombing because it was the center of the Japanese aircraft industry at the time. The city produced between forty and fifty percent of Japan's combat aircraft and engines, including the Mitsubishi A6M Zero. Nagoya housed a port capable of holding 38 ships of up to 10,000 tons and produced equipment for the war effort including railway equipment, ball bearings and processed food.


Rehe Guard Army

The Rehe Guard Army was a corps of the Manchukuo Imperial Army, formed after the conquest of the former Chinese province of Rehe during Operation Nekka in 1933. The Rehe Guard Army was created from a section of the Taoliao Army and had a nominal strength of 17,945 men
In the 1935 reorganization of the Manchukuo Imperial Army it became the 5th District Army "Chengde" under command of General Chang Hai-peng.


Tsunekazu Nishioka

Tsunekazu Nishioka (西岡常一 "Nishioka Tsunekazu", 4 September 1908 – 11 April 1995) was a highly respected "miyadaiku" (宮大工),
a temple and shrine carpenter, and the "Tōryō" (棟梁, master carpenter) of Japanese Buddhist temple and Shinto shrine buildings.
He was a stern teacher, and was given the nickname of "oni" (meaning 'devil'), for the strictness of his words of guidance to colleagues and apprentices.
Nishioka continued the ancient practices of construction and restoration used for historical temple buildings, and contributed to preserving the oldest existing wooden structures in the world.
He devoted his life to the repair and restoration of the Buddhist temple buildings at Hōryū-ji, and the restoration of Yakushi-ji (both designated
UNESCO World Heritage sites), and numerous other temples and pagodas in the region of modern-day Nara Prefecture.
Biography.
Tsunekazu Nishioka was born on 4 September 1908, in the vicinity of Nishisato village, adjacent to the Buddhist temple compound of Hōryū-ji, Nara Prefecture. Both his grandfather, Tsunekichi Nishioka and father, Naramitsu Nishioka, were master carpenters ("Tōryō", 棟梁) of Hōryū-ji.
In early childhood, he was taken to Hōryū-ji by his grandfather and was cherished by the chief priest, Saeki Jyoin.
He fondly recounted that ‘"I vividly remember having Castella cake and eating oranges given to me by Jyoin-san"’. From an early age, he received excellent guidance in becoming a master carpenter.
He worked at the temple during summer holidays from the 3rd grade of elementary school. ‘"...At that time, the precincts of the temple was the perfect place for the children of Nishisato village to play. They often played baseball on the weekends. However, whenever I saw them playing from where I was working, I thought, ‘Why am I the only one to have to work as a carpenter’ and felt resentment"’ he says.
He was enrolled at Ikoma Agricultural School in 1921. His father planned for him to go to engineering school, but on the command of his grandfather, he went to agricultural school instead. When he had started school, his grandfather began to teach him the use of carpentry tools and woodwork techniques.
After graduating in 1924, he became an apprentice carpenter. Following his years of training, he started his career as an independent carpenter from 1928, and participated in the repair and reconstruction of the temple buildings and compound ("garan") at Hōryū-ji. From January 1929 to July 1930, he was enlisted in the heavy artillery regiment of the Japanese Imperial Army, and worked as a combat medic. After being discharged in 1932, he further studied architectural techniques in the repair work on the five-story pagoda at Hōryū-ji. He became the master carpenter ("Tōryō" 棟梁) of Hōryū-ji in 1934.
As the flames of war expanded, Nishioka himself was caught in the war. In August 1937, he was drafted again as a combat medic.
The reconstruction of the Main Hall ("Kondō") of Yakushi-ji was introduced in a television program titled 'Project X’ on NHK. The carpenters practiced the revival of traditional tools who use had been increasingly abandoned, including the spear-headed plane ("yariganna"). Nishioka was given the name of ‘The Last Temple Carpenter’ for his dedication to pass the temple construction techniques that had been inherited from the Asuka era on to future generations of temple and shrine carpenters. He was honoured as a national cultural treasure, a person of cultural merit, an honorary townsperson of Ikaruga. His brother, Narajirou Nishioka, also supported his father and brother as a "miyadaiku". His main apprentice was Mitsuo Ogawa.
Nishioka died of cancer at the age of 86 on April 11, 1995.
Influence of his Grandfather.
His grandfather, Tsunekichi Nishioka, had been preparing for his successor as the Chief Carpenter of Hōryū-ji. His entire family was delighted when he was blessed with his first born grandson.
He included the character「常」(Tsune) from his own name, and named his grandson Tsunekazu「常一」. Tsunekichi often bought his grandson candy, did not scold him too harshly about his mischief, and was caring with him, as any grandfather would be. He took Tsunekazu to the construction sights of Hōryū-ji from four years old, to get him to get used to the temple surroundings and atmosphere. He made him do chores as soon as he entered elementary school. It seemed as if he was a completely different person at those times because of his strictness. His grandfather intended to groom both his son-in-law and Tsunekazu to be the future Chief Carpenter. He especially made effort to provide a thorough education for Tsunekazu which became very valuable experience.
Oral Teachings ("Kuden").
His grandfather passed on sets of traditional oral teachings and instructions - defined as the "kuden" - to both Tsunekazu and his father. These instructions could previously only be related by word-of-mouth since they were regarded as family secrets of the temple carpenters. Ten days later, he asked them a series of questions to check if they had both understood and remembered the words, and would then proceed to tell them the deeper meaning of the principles in later instructions. He would not teach the subsequent instructions until they had understood the initial ten principles.
The ten principles of the "Kuden".
Japanese: 神仏を崇めず仏法を賛仰せずして伽藍社頭を口にすべからず。
Japanese: 伽藍造営には四神相應の地を選べ。
Japanese: 堂塔の建立には木を買はず山を買へ。
Japanese: 木は生育の方位のままに使へ。
Japanese: 堂塔の木組は木の癖組。
Japanese: 木の癖組は工人たちの心組。
Japanese: 工人等の心根は匠長が工人への思やり。
Japanese: 百工あれば百念あり。一つに統ぶるが匠長が裁量也。
Japanese: 百論一つに止まるを正とや云う也。一つに止めるの器量なきは謹み惧れ匠長の座を去れ。
Japanese: 諸々の技法は一日にして成らず。祖神の徳恵也。
Nishioka's recollected that,
Television programs.
Japanese television companies produced and broadcast various feature programmes and documentaries on the life and work of Nishioka.
Documentary Film.
Original Japanese title, "Oni ni kike - Miyadaiku Nishioka Tsunekazu no yuigon" (Japanese: 鬼に訊け 宮大工 西岡常一の遺言).
Directed by Yuji Yamasaki, the documentary profile of the life and career of Tsunekazu Nishioka was released to great acclaim in Japan,
becoming the most successful domestic documentary release of 2011.
It has been distributed internationally since 2015, to commemorate the 20th anniversary of Nishioka's passing.


Battle of Rowton Heath

The Battle of Rowton Heath, also known as the Battle of Rowton Moor, occurred on 24 September 1645 during the English Civil War. Fought by the Parliamentarians, commanded by Sydnam Poyntz, and the Royalists under the personal command of King Charles I, it was a significant defeat for the Royalists, with heavy losses and Charles prevented from relieving the siege of Chester.
Prior to the battle, Charles had been attempting to link up with the Marquess of Montrose in Scotland following the Royalist defeat in the Battle of Naseby. Although his attempts to do so were unsuccessful, they were disruptive enough that the Committee of Both Kingdoms ordered Sydnam Poyntz to pursue the King with approximately 3,000 horse. After Charles was informed that Chester, his only remaining port, was under siege, he marched there with the intent of relieving the defenders, ordering 3,000 horse under the command of Marmaduke Langdale to camp outside the city while he and 600 others travelled into Chester itself on 23 September 1645. The intent was to attack the besieging Parliamentarians from both sides, Charles mistakenly believing that Poyntz had failed to follow them. In fact he was barely behind, and moved to attack Langdale's force in the early hours of 24 September. Although Langdale drove Poyntz off, the Parliamentarians besieging Chester sent reinforcements, and Langdale was forced to retreat to Rowton Heath, closer to Chester, and wait for his own reinforcements. This force, under Charles Gerard and Lord Bernard Stewart, was prevented from joining them, and Langdale was instead attacked by both Poyntz's force and the reinforcement. After being driven off the field and failing in an attempt to regroup at Chester itself, the Royalists retreated as dusk fell.
Royalist casualties were high, with 600 killed, including Stewart, and 900 taken prisoner. This defeat prevented Charles from relieving the defenders in Chester, which fell to the Parliamentarians on 3 February 1646. Charles instead withdrew with approximately 2,400 remaining cavalry, most of whom were destroyed by Poyntz's ambush at Sherburn-in-Elmet on 15 October 1645.
Background.
Following the destruction of King Charles I's main army at the Battle of Naseby on 14 June 1645, the First English Civil War tilted decisively in favour of the Parliamentarians. Charles withdrew with his remaining forces to Raglan Castle in Wales, hoping to recruit new soldiers there and travel across the Bristol Channel to link up with George Goring, the only remaining Royalist commander of a significant force. The defeat of Goring at the Battle of Langport on 10 July, along with the subsequent "disintegration" of the new troops in South Wales, led to Charles abandoning this plan. Despite this and the loss of much of Northern England following the Battle of Marston Moor, Charles still had large numbers of soldiers in the West of England, and one of his supporters, the Marquess of Montrose, was winning a string of victories across Scotland.
The Royalist force attempted to join up with Montrose in Scotland. In early August, Charles took 2,500 soldiers and marched north, being forced to turn back at Doncaster due to the advance of David Leslie and 4,000 cavalry. Charles's troops then made a raid into the Eastern Association, getting as far as Huntington and forcing the Parliamentarians besieging Hereford to withdraw. In response, the Committee of Both Kingdoms ordered Sydnam Poyntz to pursue the King. Evading Poyntz's forces, Charles again marched north on 18 September, taking 3,500 cavalry under William Vaughan and Lord Charles Gerrard as far as the River Wye at Presteigne. At this point, a messenger arrived to inform Charles that "part of the outworks of Chester were betrayed to the enemy", forcing him to change his plans and march towards Chester.
Chester had come under siege during December 1644, with a loose blockade or "leager" formed around the town. With Bristol now fallen to the Parliamentarians, Chester was the last port under Royalist control, and crucial due to its links with recruiting efforts in Ireland and North Wales. On 20 September 1645, a force of 500 horse, 200 dragoons and 700 foot under the command of Michael Jones attacked the Royalist barricades, and with the defenders completely taken by surprise, they fell back to the inner city. On 22 September, Parliamentarian artillery began bombarding the city, and after breaching the walls (and having a summons to surrender refused by the defenders), the Parliamentarians attacked in two places. Both were repulsed, in one case due to the defenders counter-attacking on foot, and in the other due to the inadequate length of the attacker's scaling ladders preventing them from climbing the wall. Despite this success, the attacking Parliamentarian forces grew in strength while the defenders were weary; as such, the arrival of Charles and his force on 23 September was met with delight.
Battle.
Charles's force consisted of 3,500 horse, organised into four brigades, the largest grouping being the 1,200 soldiers of the Northern Horse under Sir Marmaduke Langdale. In addition, there was Gerard's brigade, consisting of 800 men who had served under him in South Wales, Sir William Vaughan's 1,000-strong brigade, and the 200 members of the Life Guards, Charles's personal bodyguard, under Lord Bernard Stewart. Although experienced, the troops were depleted in number, and had low morale due to the recent string of defeats. Charles and Gerard evaded the loose Parliamentarian siege around the city, taking 600 men into Chester, while the approximately 3,000 remaining cavalry under Langdale crossed the River Dee at Holt and bivouacked at Hatton Heath, five miles to the south of Chester itself. The plan was to trap the besiegers between the two forces, destroying them or forcing them to retreat; as they numbered only 500 cavalry and 1,500 foot, this was considered to be relatively simple.
The Royalist plan failed to take into account Poyntz and his 3,000 cavalry; evidently, they assumed he had lost track of them. This assumption was mistaken, and as Charles entered Chester, Poyntz's soldiers arrived in Whitchurch, approximately 15 miles from Chester. After hearing about the situation, Poyntz promised to advance in the morning "with a considerable body of horse", which encouraged the Parliamentarians around Chester to continue resisting. One of his messengers was intercepted by Sir Richard Lloyd, however, who immediately sent a message to Charles and Langdale. After a brief Council of War, they resolved that Gerard's force and the Lifeguards, along with 500 foot, would advance to either join with Langdale or prevent Colonel Jones's forces linking up with Poyntz. Charles would remain in Chester, and watch the ensuing battle from a tower in Chester's defences, later known as King Charles' Tower.
Hatton Heath.
Langdale advanced northwards with 3,000 cavalry, and at Miller's Heath on the morning of 24 September he became aware of Poyntz's force of 3,000 also moving north. Miller's Heath was mainly made up of unenclosed heath, traversed by the Whitchurch-Chester Road, which was surrounded by hedges. Langdale lined the hedgerows with dragoons and dismounted troopers with carbines, and due to the inaccuracy of Parliamentarian reconnaissance, Poyntz was unaware of Langdale's presence until the dragoons opened fire on his vanguard at approximately 7:00 am.
As a result of Poyntz's lack of preparation, his force was strung out in a column; because of the boggy ground, they could not easily dismount. In addition, Poyntz had underestimated the strength of the Royalists and tried attacking with those troops immediately available, assuming they would be sufficient to charge and destroy the enemy. In this Poyntz was mistaken. Due to the entanglement of the vanguard with Royalist troops, it was unable to make any significant progress, and it took approximately half an hour of close-quarters fighting in the mouth of the Whitchurch-Chester Road to force the Royalists back. As the Parliamentarians deployed onto the open ground to pursue the Royalists, they were set on by a fresh group of troops and forced to repeat, and with no reinforcements available, Poyntz retreated. On the Parliamentarian side, this skirmish led to the deaths of 20 soldiers, with a number of wounded and between 50 and 60 prisoners.
The Royalists, while losing fewer soldiers, were now in a precarious position, since reinforcements from Chester were needed to follow up on the success and defeat Poyntz's force. As such, Langdale sent Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Shakerley to report to Charles, requesting reinforcements. Shakerley arrived in Chester and delivered his message after 15 minutes, but no orders were issued for a further six hours after that. Barratt speculates that one reason could have been the fatigue of the Royalist troops, and another the rivalries amongst the Royalist commanders: Gerard and Digby opposed each other, with other commanders disliking Langdale; and Charles not being strong enough to stop the disputes. The Parliamentarians, however, did send support: at approximately 2:00 pm, the Chester forces dispatched 350 horse and 400 musketeers under Colonels Michael Jones and John Booth to reinforce Poyntz.
Rowton Heath.
The Royalists in Chester saw the Parliamentarian reinforcements under Jones and Booth advance, and sent Shakerley to warn Langdale's force. After receiving the message, Langdale withdrew nearer to Chester, reforming at Rowton Heath, an entirely open space. At the same time the Royalists in Chester began to move, with Gerard advancing with 500 foot and 500 cavalry. Gerard hoped to attack Jones's force from the rear, but the Parliamentarians responded by dispatching 200 cavalry and 200 infantry to prevent this. With a shorter distance to travel, this force met Gerard on Hoole Heath, and after a confused engagement in which Lord Bernard Stewart was slain, Gerard's force was prevented from marching to Langdale's aid. Instead, Jones and Booth linked up with Poyntz, giving a combined Parliamentarian force of 3,000 horse and 500 musketeers against a tired Royalist army of approximately 2,500 horse. At approximately 4:00 pm Poyntz advanced, covered by the musketeers firing a full volley.
Despite Langdale's attempt to counter-charge, the Royalists were soon outflanked. With the Parliamentarian musketeers firing into the rear of Langdale's force, the Royalists broke, some escaping via Holt Bridge and others running towards Chester. On Hoole Heath these retreating soldiers met with part of Gerard's force and made an initially successful counter-attack before being forced back to the walls of Chester. There the retreating cavalry choked up the streets, allowing the Parliamentarian musketeers to fire into the confused mass of horsemen and leading to a rout.
Aftermath.
Rowton Heath has been called "a major disaster" for Charles, with casualties estimated at 600 dead and 900 injured, including 50 members of the Life Guard and Lord Bernard. Parliamentarian losses were also heavy, although unknown, and the battle did give Chester some respite. Despite this, Charles withdrew the next day with the remaining 2,400 horse, heading to Denbigh Castle before moving on to Newark-on-Trent. With this retreat, Chester was left without additional support, and surrendered to the Parliamentarians on 3 February 1646. The remaining Royalist cavalry were eventually destroyed in their entirety when Poyntz ambushed them at Sherburn-in-Elmet on 15 October 1645.