Mortgages can be green too, banks say

New England oil-fired generation surges as ISO New England manages a cold snap, dual-fuel switching, and a natural gas price spike, highlighting winter reliability challenges, LNG and pipeline limits, and rising CO2 emissions.

Key Points

Reliance on oil-burning power plants during winter demand spikes when natural gas is costly or constrained.

✅ Driven by dual-fuel switching amid high natural gas prices

✅ ISO-NE winter reliability rules encourage oil stockpiles

✅ Raises CO2 emissions despite coal retirements and renewables growth

New England is relying on oil-fired generators for the most electricity since 2018 as a frigid blast boosts demand for power and natural gas prices soar across markets. 

Oil generators were producing more than 4,200 megawatts early Thursday, accounting for about a quarter of the grid’s power supply, according to ISO New England. That was the most since Jan. 6, 2018, when oil plants produced as much as 6.4 gigawatts, or 32% of the grid’s output, said Wood Mackenzie analyst Margaret Cashman.  

Oil is typically used only when demand spikes, because of higher costs and emissions concerns. Consumption has been consistently high over the past three weeks as some generators switch from gas, which has surged in price in recent months. New England generators are producing power from oil at an average rate of almost 1.8 gigawatts so far this month, the highest for January in at least five years. 

Oil’s share declined to 16% Friday morning ahead of an expected snowstorm, which was “a surprise,” Cashman said. 

“It makes me wonder if some of those generators are aiming to reserve their fuel for this weekend,” she said.

During the recent cold snap, more than a tenth of the electricity generated in New England has been produced by power plants that haven’t happened for at least 15 years.

Burning oil for electricity was standard practice throughout the region for decades. It was once our most common fuel for power and as recently as 2000, fully 19% of the six-state region’s electricity came from burning oil, according to ISO-New England, more than any other source except nuclear power at the time.

Since then, however, natural gas has gotten so cheap that most oil-fired plants have been shut or converted to burn gas, to the point that just 1% of New England’s electricity came from oil in 2018, whereas about half our power came from natural gas generation regionally during that period. This is good because natural gas produces less pollution, both particulates and greenhouse gasses, although exactly how much less is a matter of debate.

But as you probably know, there’s a problem: Natural gas is also used for heating, which gets first dibs. Prolonged cold snaps require so much gas to keep us warm, a challenge echoed in Ontario’s electricity system as supply tightens, that there might not be enough for power plants – at least, not at prices they’re willing to pay.

After we came close to rolling brownouts during the polar vortex in the 2017-18 winter because gas-fired power plants cut back so much, ISO-NE, which has oversight of the power grid, established “winter reliability” rules. The most important change was to pay power plants to become dual-fuel, meaning they can switch quickly between natural gas and oil, and to stockpile oil for winter cold snaps.

We’re seeing that practice in action right now, as many dual-fuel plants have switched away from gas to oil, just as was intended.

That switch is part of the reason EPA says the region’s carbon emissions have gone up in the pandemic, from 22 million tons of CO2 in 2019 to 24 million tons in 2021. That reverses a long trend caused partly by closing of coal plants and partly by growing solar and offshore wind capacity: New England power generation produced 36 million tons of CO2 a decade ago.

So if we admit that a return to oil burning is bad, and it is, what can we do in future winters? There are many possibilities, including tapping more clean imports such as Canadian hydropower to diversify supply.

The most obvious solution is to import more natural gas, especially from fracked fields in New York state and Pennsylvania. But efforts to build pipelines to do that have been shot down a couple of times and seem unlikely to go forward and importing more gas via ocean tanker in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) is also an option, but hits limits in terms of port facilities.

Aside from NIMBY concerns, the problem with building pipelines or ports to import more gas is that pipelines and ports are very expensive. Once they’re built they create a financial incentive to keep using natural gas for decades to justify the expense, similar to moves such as Ontario’s new gas plants that lock in generation. That makes it much harder for New England to decarbonize and potentially leaves ratepayers on the hook for a boatload of stranded costs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Starlink Contract Cancellation underscores rising tariffs, trade tensions, and retaliation, as SpaceX's Elon Musk loses a rural broadband deal; Ontario pivots to procurement bans, energy resilience, and nuclear power to boost grid independence.

Key Points

Ontario ended a C$100M Starlink deal over U.S. tariffs, prompting a shift to rural broadband alternatives.

✅ Triggered by U.S. tariffs; Ontario adopts retaliatory procurement bans.

✅ Ends plan to connect 15,000 rural homes and businesses with broadband.

✅ Signals push for energy resilience, nuclear power, and grid independence.

In a decisive move, Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced the cancellation of a C$100 million contract with Elon Musk's Starlink, a subsidiary of SpaceX, in direct response to U.S. President Donald Trump's imposition of tariffs on Canadian imports. This action underscores the escalating trade tensions between Canada and the United States, a theme highlighted during Ford's Washington meeting on energy tariffs earlier this month, and highlights Ontario's efforts to safeguard its economic interests.

The now-terminated agreement, established in November, aimed to provide high-speed internet access to 15,000 homes and businesses in Ontario's remote areas. Premier Ford's decision to "rip up" the contract signifies a broader strategy to distance the province from U.S.-based companies amid the current trade dispute. He emphasized, "Ontario won't do business with people hell-bent on destroying our economy."

This move is part of a series of retaliatory measures by Canadian provinces, including Ford's threat to cut electricity exports to the U.S., following President Trump's announcement of a 25% tariff on nearly all Canadian imports, excluding oil, which faces a 10% surcharge. These tariffs, set to take effect imminently, have prompted concerns about potential economic downturns in Canada. In response, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared that Canada would impose 25% tariffs on C$155 billion worth of U.S. goods, aiming to exert pressure on the U.S. administration to reconsider its stance.

Premier Ford's actions reflect a broader sentiment of economic nationalism, as he also announced a ban on American companies from provincial contracts until the U.S. tariffs are lifted. He highlighted that Ontario's government and its agencies allocate $30 billion annually on procurement, and reiterated his earlier vow to fire the Hydro One CEO and board as part of broader reforms aimed at efficiency.

The cancellation of the Starlink contract raises concerns about the future of internet connectivity in Ontario's rural regions. The original deal with Starlink was seen as a significant step toward bridging the digital divide, offering high-speed internet to underserved communities. With the contract's termination, the province faces the challenge of identifying alternative solutions to fulfill this critical need.

Beyond the immediate implications of the Starlink contract cancellation, Ontario is confronting broader challenges in ensuring the resilience and independence of its energy infrastructure. The province's reliance on external entities for critical services, such as internet connectivity and energy, has come under scrutiny, as Canada's electricity exports are at risk amid ongoing trade tensions and policy uncertainty.

Premier Ford has expressed a commitment to expanding Ontario's capacity to generate nuclear power as a means to bolster energy self-sufficiency. While this strategy aims to reduce dependence on external energy sources, it presents its own set of challenges that critics argue require cleaning up Ontario's hydro mess before new commitments proceed. Developing nuclear infrastructure requires substantial investment, rigorous safety protocols, and long-term planning. Moreover, the integration of nuclear power into the province's energy mix necessitates careful consideration of environmental impacts and public acceptance.

The concept of "Trump-proofing" Ontario's electricity grid involves creating a robust and self-reliant energy system capable of withstanding external political and economic pressures. Achieving this goal entails diversifying energy sources, including building on Ontario's electricity deal with Quebec to strengthen interties, investing in renewable energy technologies, and enhancing grid infrastructure to ensure stability and resilience.

However, the path to energy independence is fraught with complexities. Balancing the immediate need for reliable energy with long-term sustainability goals requires nuanced policy decisions, including Ontario's Supreme Court challenge to the global adjustment fee and related regulatory reviews to clarify cost impacts. Additionally, fostering collaboration between government entities, private sector stakeholders, and the public is essential to navigate the multifaceted challenges associated with overhauling the province's energy framework.

Ontario's recent actions, including the cancellation of the Starlink contract, underscore the province's proactive stance in safeguarding its economic and infrastructural interests amid evolving geopolitical dynamics. While such measures reflect a commitment to self-reliance, they also highlight the intricate challenges inherent in reducing dependence on external entities. As Ontario charts its course toward a more autonomous future, strategic planning, investment in sustainable technologies, and collaborative policymaking will be pivotal in achieving long-term resilience and prosperity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Manitoba Electrification History charts arc lights, hydroelectric dams, Winnipeg utilities, transmission lines, rural electrification, and Manitoba Hydro to today's wind, solar, and EV transition across the provincial power grid, driving modernization and reliability.

Key Points

Manitoba's power evolution from arc lights to hydro and rural electrification, advancing wind and solar on a modern grid.

✅ 1873 Winnipeg arc light predates Edison and Bell.

✅ 1919 Act built transmission lines, rural electrification.

✅ Hydroelectric dams reshaped lands and affected First Nations.

The first electric light in Manitoba was turned on in Winnipeg in 1873, but it was a century ago this year that the switch was flipped on a decision that would bring power to the fingertips of people across the province.

On March 12, 1873, Robert Davis — who owned the Davis House hotel on Main Street, about a block from Portage Avenue — used an electric arc light to illuminate the front of his building, according to A History of Electric Power in Manitoba, published by Manitoba Hydro.

That type of light used an an inert gas in a glass container to create an electric arc between two metal electrodes.

"The lamp in front of the Davis Hotel is quite an institution," a Manitoba Free Press report from the day said. "It looks well and guides the weary traveller to a haven of rest, billiards and hot drinks."

A ladder crew from the Winnipeg Electric Street Railway Company working on an electric trolley line in 1905. (I.F. Allen/Manitoba Hydro archives)

The event took place six years before Thomas Edison's first incandescent lamp was invented and three years before the first complete sentence was spoken over the telephone by Alexander Graham Bell.

"Electrification probably had a bigger influence on the lives of Manitobans than virtually anything else," said Gordon Goldsborough, head researcher with the Manitoba Historical Society.

"It's one of the most significant changes in the lives of Manitobans ever, because basically it transformed so many aspects of their lives. It wasn't just one thing — it touched pretty much every aspect of life."

Winnipeg gets its 1st street lamps

In the pioneer days of lighting and street railway transportation in Winnipeg, multiple companies formed in an effort to take advantage of the new utility: Winnipeg Gas Company, Winnipeg General Power Company, Manitoba Electric and Gas Light Company, and The North West Electric Light and Power Company.

In October 1882, the first four street lamps, using electric arc lights, were turned on along Main Street from Broadway to the CPR crossing over the Assiniboine River.

They were installed privately by P.V. Carroll, who came from New York to establish the Manitoba Electric Light & Power Company and try to win a contract for illuminating the rest of the city's streets.

He didn't get it. Newspaper reports from the time noted many outages and other problems and general disappointment in the quality of the light.

Instead, the North West Electric Light and Power Company won that contract and in June 1883 it lit up the streets.

Workers erect a wooden hydro pole beside the Belmont Hotel in 1936. Belmont is a small community southeast of Brandon. (Manitoba Hydro archives)

Over the years, other companies would bring power to the city as it became more reliable, including the Winnipeg Electric Street Railway Company (WERCo), which built the streetcar system and sold electric heat, light and power.

But it was the Brandon Electric Light Company that first tapped into a new source of power — hydro. In 1900, a dam was built across the Minnedosa River (now known as the Little Saskatchewan River) in western Manitoba, and the province's first hydroelectric generating station was created.

The first transmission line was also built, connecting the station with Brandon.

By 1906, WERCo had taken over the Winnipeg General Power Company and the Manitoba Electric and Gas Light Company, and changed its name to the Winnipeg Electric Railway Company. Later, it became the Winnipeg Electric Company, or WECo.

It also took a cue from Brandon, building a hydroelectric plant to provide more power. The Pinawa dam site operated until 1951 and is now a provincial park.

The Minnedosa River plant was the first hydroelectric generating station in Manitoba. (Manitoba Hydro archives)

The City of Winnipeg Hydroelectric System was also formed in 1906 as a public utility to combat the growing power monopoly held by WECo, and to get cheaper power. The city had been buying its supply from the private company "and the City of Winnipeg didn't quite like that price," said Bruce Owen, spokesman for Manitoba Hydro.

So the city funded and built its own dam and generating station site on the Winnipeg River in Pointe du Bois — about 125 kilometres northeast of Winnipeg — which is still in operation today.

"All of a sudden, not only did we have street lights … businesses had lights, power was supplied to homes, people no longer had to cook on wood stoves or walk around with kerosene lanterns. This city took off," said Owen.

"It helped industry grow in the city of Winnipeg. Within a few short years, a second plant had to be built, at Slave Falls."

Lighting up rural Manitoba

While the province's two biggest cities enjoyed the luxury of electricity and the conveniences it brought, the patchwork of power suppliers had also created a jumble of contracts with differing rates and terms, spurring periodic calls for a western Canadian electricity grid to improve coordination.

Meanwhile, most of rural Manitoba remained in the dark.

The Pinawa Dam was built by the Winnipeg Electric Street Railway Company in 1906 and operated until 1951. (Manitoba Hydro archives)

The Pinawa Dam site now, looking like some old Roman ruins. (Darren Bernhardt/CBC)

That began to change in 1919 when the Manitoba government passed the Electric Power Transmission Act, with the aim of supplying rural Manitoba with electrical power. The act enabled the construction of transmission lines to carry electricity from the Winnipeg River generating stations to communities all over southern Manitoba.

It also created the Manitoba Power Commission, predecessor to today's Manitoba Hydro, to purchase power from the City of Winnipeg — and later WECo — to supply to those other communities.

The first transmission line, a 97-kilometre link between Winnipeg and Portage la Prairie, opened in late 1919, and modern interprovincial projects like Manitoba-Saskatchewan power line funding continue that legacy today. The power came from Pointe du Bois to a Winnipeg converter station that still stands at the corner of Stafford Street and Scotland Avenue, then went on to Portage la Prairie.

"That's the remarkable thing that started in 1919," said Goldsborough.

Every year after that, the list of towns connected to the power grid became longer "and gradually, over the early 20th century, the province became electrified," Goldsborough said.

"You'd see these maps that would spider out across the province showing the [lines] that connected each of these communities — a precursor to ideas like macrogrids — to each other, and it was really quite remarkable."

By 1928, 33 towns were connected to the Manitoba Power Commission grid. That rose to 44 by 1930 and 140 by 1939, according to the Manitoba Historical Society.

Power on the farm

Still, one group who could greatly use electricity for their operations — farmers — were still using lanterns, steam and coal for light, heat and power.

"The power that came to the [nearest] town didn't extend to them," said Goldsborough.

It was during the Second World War, as manual labour was hard to come by on farms, that the Manitoba Power Commission recognized the gap in its grid.

It met with farmers to explain the benefits electricity could bring and surveyed their interest. When the war ended in 1945, the farm electrification process got underway.

Employees, their spouses, and children pose for a photo outside of Great Falls generating station in 1923. (Manitoba Hydro archives)

Farmers were taught wiring techniques and about the use of motors for farm equipment, as well as about electric appliances and other devices to ease the burden of domestic life.

"The electrification of the 1940s and '50s absolutely revolutionized rural life," said Goldsborough.

"Farmers had to provide water for all those animals and in a lot of cases [prior to electrification] they would just use a hand pump, or sometimes they'd have a windmill. But these were devices that weren't especially reliable and they weren't high capacity."

Electric motors changed everything, from pumping water to handling grain, while electric heat provided comfort to both people and animals.

Workers build a hydro transmission line tower in an undated photo from Manitoba Hydro. (Manitoba Hydro archives)

"Now you could have heat lamps for your baby chickens. They would lose a lot of chickens normally, because they would simply be too cold," Goldsborough said.

Keeping things warm was important, but so too was refrigeration. In addition to being able to store meat in summer, it was "something to prolong the life of dairy products, eggs, anything," said Manitoba Hydro's Owen.

"It's all the things we take for granted — a flick of a switch to turn the lights on instead of walking around with a lantern, being able to have maybe a bit longer day to do routine work because you have light."

Agriculture was the backbone of the province but it was limited without electricity, said Owen.

Connecting it to the grid "brought it into the modern age and truly kick-started it to make it a viable part of our economy," he said. "And we still see that today."

In 1954, when the farm electrification program ended, Manitoba was the most wired of the western provinces, with 75 per cent of farms and 100,000 customers connected.

The success of the farm electrification program, combined with the post-war boom, brought new challenges, as the existing power generation could not support the new demand.

The three largest players — City Hydro, WECo and the Manitoba Power Commission, along with the provincial government  — created the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board in 1949 to co-ordinate generation and distribution of power.

A float in a Second World War victory parade represents a hydroelectric dam and the electricity it generates to power cities. (Manitoba Hydro archives)

More hydroelectric generating stations were built and more reorganizations took place. WECo was absorbed by the board and its assets split into separate companies — Greater Winnipeg Gas and Greater Winnipeg Transit.

Its electricity distribution properties were sold to City Hydro, which became the sole distributor in central Winnipeg. The Manitoba Power Commission became sole distributor of electricity in the suburbs and the rest of Manitoba.

Impacts on First Nations

Even as the lives of many people in the province were made easier by the supply of electricity, many others suffered from negative impacts in the rush of progress.

Many First Nations were displaced by hydro dams, which flooded their ancestral lands and destroyed their traditional ways of life.

"And we hear stories about the potential abuses that occurred," said Goldsborough. "So you know, there are there pluses but there are definitely minuses."

In the late 1950s, the Manitoba Power Commission continued to grow and expand its reach, this time moving into the north by buying up private utilities in The Pas and Cranberry Portage.

In 1961, the provincial government merged the commission with the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board to create Manitoba Hydro.

In 1973, 100 years after the first light went on at that Main Street hotel, the last of the independent power utilities in the province — the Northern Manitoba Power Company Ltd. — was taken over by Hydro.

Winnipeg Hydro, previously called City Hydro, joined the fold in 2002.

Today, Manitoba Hydro operates 15 generating stations and serves 580,262 electric power customers in the province, as well as 281,990 natural gas customers.

New era

And now, as happened in 1919, a new era in electricity distribution is emerging as alternative sources of power — wind and solar — grow in popularity, and as communities like Fort Frances explore integrated microgrids for resilience.

"There's a bit of a clean energy shift happening," said Owen, adding use of biomass energy — energy production from plant or animal material — is also expanding.

"And there's a technological change going on and that's the electrification of vehicles. There are only really several hundred [electric vehicles] in Manitoba on the streets right now. But we know at some point, with affordability and reliability, there'll be a switch over and the gas-powered internal combustion engine will start to disappear."

'We're just a little behind here': Manitoba electric vehicle owners call for more charging stations

That means electrical utilities around the world are re-examining their capabilities, as climate change increasingly stresses grids, said Owen.

"It's coming [and we need to know], are we in a position to meet it? What will be the demands on the system on a path to a net-zero grid by 2050 nationwide?" he said.

"It may not come in my lifetime, but it is coming."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Belarus Nuclear Power Infrastructure Review evaluates IAEA INIR Phase 3 readiness at Ostrovets NPP, VVER-1200 reactors, legal and regulatory framework, commissioning, safety, emergency preparedness, and energy diversification in a low-carbon program.

Key Points

An IAEA INIR Phase 3 assessment of Belarus readiness to commission and operate the Ostrovets NPP with VVER-1200 units.

✅ Reviews legal, regulatory, and institutional arrangements

✅ Confirms Phase 3 readiness for safe commissioning and operation

✅ Highlights good practices in peer reviews and emergency planning

An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team of experts today concluded a 12-day mission to Belarus to review its infrastructure development for a nuclear power programme. The Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) was carried out at the invitation of the Government of Belarus.

Belarus, seeking to diversify its energy production with a reliable low-carbon source, and aware of the benefits of energy storage for grid flexibility, is building its first nuclear power plant (NPP) at the Ostrovets site, about 130 km north-west of the capital Minsk. The country has engaged with the Russian Federation to construct and commission two VVER-1200 pressurised water reactors at this site and expects the first unit to be connected to the grid this year.

The INIR mission reviewed the status of nuclear infrastructure development using the Phase 3 conditions of the IAEA’s Milestones Approach. The Ministry of Energy of Belarus hosted the mission.

The INIR team said Belarus is close to completing the required nuclear power infrastructure for starting the operation of its first NPP. The team made recommendations and suggestions aimed at assisting Belarus in making further progress in its readiness to commission and operate it, including planning for integration with variable renewables, as advances in new wind turbines are being deployed elsewhere to strengthen the overall energy mix.

“This mission marks an important step for Belarus in its preparations for the introduction of nuclear power,” said team leader Milko Kovachev, Head of the IAEA’s Nuclear Infrastructure Development Section. “We met well-prepared, motivated and competent professionals ready to openly discuss all infrastructure issues. The team saw a clear drive to meet the objectives of the programme and deliver benefits to the Belarusian people, such as supporting the country’s economic development, including growth in EV battery manufacturing sectors.”

The team comprised one expert from Algeria and two experts from the United Kingdom, as well as seven IAEA staff. It reviewed the status of 19 nuclear infrastructure issues using the IAEA evaluation methodology for Phase 3 of the Milestones Approach, noting that regional integration via an electricity highway can shape planning assumptions as well. It was the second INIR mission to Belarus, who hosted a mission covering Phases 1 and 2 in 2012.

Prior to the latest mission, Belarus prepared a Self-Evaluation Report covering all infrastructure issues and submitted the report and supporting documents to the IAEA.

The team highlighted areas where further actions would benefit Belarus, including the need to improve institutional arrangements and the legal and regulatory framework, drawing on international examples of streamlined licensing for advanced reactors to ensure a stable and predictable environment for the programme; and to finalize the remaining arrangements needed for sustainable operation of the nuclear power plant.

The team also identified good practices that would benefit other countries developing nuclear power in the areas of programme and project coordination, the use of independent peer reviews, cooperation with regulators from other countries, engagement with international stakeholders and emergency preparedness, and awareness of regional initiatives such as new electricity interconnectors that can enhance system resilience.

Mikhail Chudakov, IAEA Deputy Director General and Head of the Department of Nuclear Energy attended the Mission’s closing meeting. “Developing the infrastructure required for a nuclear power programme requires significant financial and human resources, and long lead times for preparation and the approval of major transmission projects that support clean power flows, and the construction activities,” he said. “Belarus has made commendable progress since the decision to launch a nuclear power programme 10 years ago.”

“Hosting the INIR mission, Belarus demonstrated its transparency and genuine interest to receive an objective professional assessment of the readiness of its nuclear power infrastructure for the commissioning of the country’s first nuclear power plant,” said Mikhail Mikhadyuk, Deputy Minister of Energy of the Republic of Belarus. ”The recommendations and suggestions we received will be an important guidance for our continuous efforts aimed at ensuring the highest level of safety and reliability of the Belarusian NPP."
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Foote Creek I Wind Farm Repowering upgrades Wyoming turbines with new nacelles, towers, and blades, cutting 68 units to 12 while sustaining 41.6 MW, under PacifiCorp and Rocky Mountain Power's Energy Vision 2020 plan.

Key Points

Replacement at Foote Creek Rim I, cutting to 12 turbines while sustaining about 41.6 MW using modern 2-4.2 MW units.

✅ 12 turbines replace 68, output steady near 41.6 MW

✅ New nacelles, towers, blades; taller 500 ft turbines

✅ Part of PacifiCorp Energy Vision 2020 and Gateway West

A Wyoming utility company has filed a permit to replace its first wind farm—originally commissioned in 1998, composed of over 65 turbines—amid new gas capacity competing with nuclear in Ohio, located at Foote Creek Rim I. The replacement would downsize the number of turbines to 12, which would still generate roughly the same energy output.

According to the Star Tribune, PacifiCorp’s new installation would involve new nacelles, new towers and new blades. The permit was filed with Carbon County.

New WY Wind Farm

The replacement wind turbines will stand more than twice as tall as the old: Those currently installed stand 200 feet tall, whereas their replacements will tower closer to 500 feet. Though this move is part of the company’s overall plan to expand its state wind fleet as some utilities respond to declining coal returns in the Midwest, the work going into the Foote Creek site is somewhat special, noted David Eskelsen, spokesperson for Rocky Mountain Power, the western arm of PacifiCorp.

“Foote Creek I repowering is somewhat different from the repowering projects announced in the (Energy Vision) 2020 initiative,” he said. “Foote Creek is a complete replacement of the existing 68 foundations, towers, turbine nacelles and rotors (blades).”

Currently, the turbines at Foote Creek have 600 kilowatts capacity each; the replacements’ maximum production ranges from 2 megawatts to 4.2 megawatts each, with the total output remaining steady at 41.4 megawatts, a scale similar to a 30-megawatt wind expansion in Eastern Kings, though there will be a slight capacity increase to 41.6 megawatts, according to the Star Tribune.

As part of the wind farm repowering initiative, PacifiCorp is to become full owner and operator of the Foote Creek site. When the farm was originally built, an Oregon-based water and electric board was 21 percent owner; 37 percent of the project’s output was tied into a contract with the Bonneville Power Administration.

Otherwise, PacifiCorp is moving to further expand its state wind fleet in line with initiatives like doubling renewable electricity by 2030 in Saskatchewan, with the addition of three new wind farms—to be located in Carbon, Albany and Converse counties—which may add up to 1,150 megawatts of power.

According to PacifiCorp, the company has more than 1,000 megawatts of owned wind generation capability, along with long-term purchase agreements for more than 600 megawatts from other wind farms owned by other entities. Energy Vision 2020 refers to a $3.5 billion investment and company move that is looking to upgrade the company's existing wind fleet with newer technology, adding 1,150 megawatts of new wind resources by 2020 and a a new 140-mile Gateway West transmission segment in Wyoming, comparable to a transmission project in Missouri just energized.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

San Juan Generating Station eyed for $1 coal-plant sale, as Farmington and Acme propose CCS retrofit, meeting emissions caps and renewable mandates by selling captured CO2 for enhanced oil recovery via a nearby pipeline.

Key Points

A New Mexico coal plant eyed for $1 and a CCS retrofit to cut emissions and sell CO2 for enhanced oil recovery.

✅ $400M-$800M CCS retrofit; 90% CO2 capture target

✅ CO2 sales for enhanced oil recovery; 20-mile pipeline gap

✅ PNM projects shutdown savings; renewable and emissions mandates

One dollar. That’s how much an aging New Mexico coal plant is worth. And by some estimates, even that may be too much.

Acme Equities LLC, a New York-based holding company, is in talks to buy the 847-megawatt San Juan Generating Station for $1, after four of its five owners decided to shut it down. The fifth owner, the nearby city of Farmington, says it’s pursuing the bargain-basement deal with Acme to avoid losing about 1,600 direct and indirect jobs in the area amid a broader just transition debate for energy workers.

We respectfully disagree with the notion that the plant is not economical

Acme’s interest comes as others are looking to exit a coal industry that’s been plagued by costly anti-pollution regulations. Acme’s plan: Buy the plant "at a very low cost," invest in carbon capture technology that will lower emissions, and then sell the captured CO2 to oil companies, said Larry Heller, a principal at the holding group.

By doing this, Acme “believes we can generate an acceptable rate of return,” Heller said in an email.

Meanwhile, San Juan’s majority owner, PNM Resources Inc., offers a distinctly different view, echoing declining coal returns reported by other utilities. A 2022 shutdown will push ratepayers to other energy alternatives now being planned, saving them about $3 to $4 a month on average, PNM has said.

“We could not identify a solution that would make running San Juan Generating Station economical,” said Tom Fallgren, a PNM vice president, in an email.

The potential sale comes as a new clean-energy bill, supported by Governor Lujan Grisham, is working its way through the state legislature. It would require the state to get half of its power from renewable sources by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045, even as other jurisdictions explore small modular reactor strategies to meet future demand. At the same time, the legislation imposes an emissions cap that’s about 60 percent lower than San Juan’s current levels.

In response, Acme is planning to spend $400 million to $800 million to retrofit the facility with carbon capture and sequestration technology that would collect carbon dioxide before it’s released into the atmosphere, Heller said. That would put the facility into compliance with the pending legislation and, at the same time, help generate revenue for the plant.

The company estimates the system would cut emissions by as much as 90 percent, and the captured gas could be sold to oil companies, which uses it to enhance well recovery. The bottom line, according to Heller: “A winning financial formula.”

It’s a tricky formula at best. Carbon-capture technology has been controversial, even as new coal plant openings remain rare, expensive to install and unproven at scale. Additionally, to make it work at the San Juan plant, the company would need to figure out how to deliver the CO2 to customers since the nearest pipeline is about 20 miles (32 kilometers) away.

Reducing costs

Acme is also evaluating ways to reduce costs at San Juan, Heller said, including approaches seen at operators extending the life of coal plants under regulatory scrutiny, such as negotiating a cheaper coal-supply contract and qualifying for subsidies.

Farmington’s stake in the plant is less than 10 percent. But under terms of the partnership, the city — population 45,000 — can assume full control of San Juan should the other partners decide to pull out, mirroring policy debates over saving struggling nuclear plants in other regions. That’s given Farmington the legal authority to pursue the plant’s sale to Acme.

At the end of the day, nobody wants the energy

“We respectfully disagree with the notion that the plant is not economical,” Farmington Mayor Nate Duckett said by email. Ducket said he’s in better position than the other owners to assess San Juan’s importance “because we sit at Ground Zero.”

The city’s economy would benefit from keeping open both the plant and a nearby coal mine that feeds it, according to Duckett, with operations that contribute about $170 million annually to the local area.

While the loss of those jobs would be painful to some, Camilla Feibelman, a Sierra Club chapter director, is hard pressed to see a business case for keeping San Juan open, pointing to sector closures such as the Three Mile Island shutdown as evidence of shifting economics. The plant isn’t economical now, and would almost certainly be less so after investing the capital to add carbon-capture systems.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News