Senators consider new draft of Missouri nuclear bill

EV Firefighter Cancer Risks: lithium-ion battery fires, toxic metals like nickel and chromium, hazardous smoke plumes, and prolonged exposure threaten first responders; SCBA use, decontamination, and evidence-based protocols help reduce occupational health impacts.

Key Points

Health hazards from EV battery fires exposing responders to toxic metals and smoke, elevating long-term cancer risk.

✅ Nickel and chromium in EV smoke linked to lung and sinus cancers

✅ Use SCBA, on-scene decon, and post-incident cleaning to cut exposure

✅ Adopt EV fire SOPs: cooling, monitoring, isolation, air monitoring

As electric vehicles (EVs) become more popular, the EV fire risks to firefighters are becoming an increasing concern. These fires, fueled by the high-capacity lithium-ion batteries in EVs, produce dangerous chemical exposures that could have serious long-term health implications for first responders.

Claudine Buzzo, a firefighter and cancer survivor, knows firsthand the dangers that come with the profession. She’s faced personal health battles, including rare pancreatic cancer and breast cancer, both of which she attributes to the hazards of firefighting. Now, as EV adoption increases and some research links adoption to fewer asthma-related ER visits in local communities, Buzzo and her colleagues are concerned about how EV fires might add to their already heavy exposure to harmful chemicals.

The fire risks associated with EVs are different from those of traditional gasoline-powered vehicles. Dr. Alberto Caban-Martinez, who is leading a study at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, explains that the high concentrations of metals released in the smoke from an EV fire are linked to various cancers. For instance, nickel, a key component in EV batteries, is associated with lung, nasal, and laryngeal cancers, while chromium, another metal found in some EV batteries, is linked to lung and sinus cancers.

Research from the Firefighter Cancer Initiative indicates that the plume of smoke from an EV fire contains significantly higher concentrations of these metals than fires from traditional vehicles. This raises the risk of long-term health problems for firefighters who respond to such incidents.

While the Electric Vehicle Association acknowledges the risks associated with various types of vehicle fires, they maintain that the lithium-ion batteries in EVs may not present a significantly higher risk than other common fire hazards, even as broader assessments suggest EVs are not a silver bullet for climate goals. Nonetheless, the growing body of research is causing concern among health experts, urging for further studies into how these new types of fires could affect firefighter health and how upstream electricity generation, where 18% of electricity in 2019 came from fossil fuels in Canada, factors into overall risk perceptions.

Fire departments and health researchers are working to understand the full scope of these risks and are emphasizing the importance of protective gear, such as self-contained breathing apparatuses, to minimize exposure during EV fire responses, while also considering questions like grid impacts during charging operations and EV sustainability improvements in different regions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

ERCOT Winter Capacity RFP seeks up to 3,000 MW through generation and demand response to bolster Texas grid reliability during peak load, leveraging Reliability Must-Run, incentive factors, and EEA risk mitigation for the 2023-24 season.

Key Points

An ERCOT initiative to procure 3,000 MW of generation and demand response to reduce EEA risk and improve reliability.

✅ Targets 3,000 MW from generation and demand response

✅ Uses RMR-style contracts with flexible incentive factors

✅ Aims to lower EEA probability below 10% this winter

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) issued a request for proposals to stakeholders to procure up to 3,000 MW of generation or demand response capacity to meet load and reserve requirements during the winter 2023-24 peak load season (Dec. 1, 2023, through Feb. 29, 2024), amid ongoing Texas power grid challenges across the region.

ERCOT cited “several factors, including significant peak load growth since last winter, recent and proposed retirements of dispatchable Generation Resources, and recent extreme winter weather events, including Winter Storm Elliott in December 2022, Winter Storm Uri in February 2021, and the 2018 and 2011 winter storms, each of which resulted in abnormally high demand during winter weather.” It now seeks additional capacity under its “authority to prevent an anticipated Emergency Condition,” reflecting nationwide blackout risks identified by grid experts.

In its notice regarding the RFP, ERCOT identified a number of mothballed and recently decommissioned generation resources that may be eligible to offer capacity under the RFP. It further stated that offers must comport with the format of its “Reliability Must-Run” agreement but could include a proposed “Incentive Factor” that reflects the revenues the unit owners determine would be necessary to bring the unit back to operation. It added that the Incentive Factor is not necessarily limited to 10%. Providers of eligible demand response can submit offers based on similar principles that are not necessarily constrained by cost. The notice identifies potential acceptable sources of demand response, describes certain parameters for the kinds of demand response that are permitted to respond to the RFP, and outlines the time periods during which ERCOT must be able to deploy the demand response resources to improve electricity reliability across the system.

To meet the Dec. 1, 2023, service start date, ERCOT developed an aggressive timeline to solicit and evaluate proposals through the RFP. Responses to the RFP are due Nov. 6, 2023. ERCOT’s schedule provides that it will notify market participants that obtain awards on Nov. 23, 2023. Expect contracts to be executed by Nov. 30, 2023.

Unlike Regional Transmission Organizations in the Northeastern United States, ERCOT does not have a capacity market. Instead, ERCOT relies on a high price cap of $5,000 per MWh for its energy market (decreased from the $9,000 per MWh cap in effect during Winter Storm Uri) and an Operating Reserve Demand Curve adder that pays additional funds to generators supplying power and ancillary services, an area recently scrutinized for improper payments when supply conditions are tight. In the wake of Winter Storm Uri, some calls were made to have ERCOT adopt a capacity market for reliability reasons, and a number of legal battles continue to play out in the wake of Winter Storm Uri. (See recent McGuireWoods legal alert “Winter Storm Uri Power Dispute Reaches the Supreme Court of Texas.”) Though a capacity market was not adopted, the Texas Legislature approved a $7.2 billion loan program, widely described as an electricity market bailout for generators, to build up to 10,000 MW of dispatchable generation. The legislature also approved a version of the Public Utility Commission of Texas’ proposal to establish a “Performance Credit Mechanism,” but with a cost cap of $1 billion.

The loss of life and economic impacts of Winter Storm Uri in 2021, along with the energy crunches and calls for conservation this past summer, are driving changes to ERCOT’s “energy-only” market, including electricity market reforms under consideration. Texas policymakers are providing multiple financial incentives to promote investment in dispatchable on-demand generation, and voters will consider funding to modernize generation measures this year to make the Texas grid more reliable and able to deal with power demand from a growing economy and increased demand for electricity driven by weather. In the meantime, ERCOT’s plan to procure 3,000 MW through this RFP process is a stopgap measure intended to bolster reliability for the upcoming winter season and lower the probability of load shed in the event of severe winter weather.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EU Power Market Overhaul targets soaring electricity prices by decoupling gas from power, boosting renewables, refining price caps, and stabilizing grids amid inflation, supply shocks, droughts, nuclear outages, and intermittent wind and solar.

Key Points

EU plan to redesign electricity pricing, curb gas-driven costs, boost renewables, and protect consumers from volatility.

✅ Decouples power prices from marginal gas generation

✅ Caps non-gas revenues to fund consumer relief

✅ Supports grid stability with storage, demand response, LNG

While energy prices are soaring around the world, Europe is in a particularly tight spot. Its heavy dependence on Russian gas -- on top of droughts, heat waves, an unreliable fleet of French nuclear reactors and a continent-wide shift to greener but more intermittent sources like solar and wind -- has been driving electricity bills up and feeding the highest inflation in decades. As Europe stands on the brink of a recession, and with the winter heating season approaching, officials are considering a major overhaul of the region’s power market to reflect the ongoing shift from fossil fuels to renewables.

1. How is electricity priced? 
Unlike oil or natural gas, there’s no efficient way to save lots of electricity to use in the future, though projects to store electricity in gas pipes are emerging. Commercial use of large-scale batteries is still years away. So power prices have been set by the availability at any given moment. When it’s really windy or sunny, for example, then more is produced relatively cheaply and prices are lower. If that supply shrinks, then prices rise because more generators are brought online to help meet demand -- fueled by more expensive sources. The way the market has long worked is that it is that final technology, or type of plant, needed to meet the last unit of consumption that sets the price for everyone. In Europe this year, that has usually meant natural gas. 

2. What is the relationship between power and gas? 
Very close. Across western Europe, gas plants have been a vital part of the energy infrastructure for decades, with Irish price spikes highlighting dispatchable power risks, fed in large part by supplies piped in from Siberia. Gas-fired plants were relatively quick to build and the technology straightforward, at least compared with nuclear plants and burns cleaner than coal. About 18% of Europe’s electricity was generated at gas plants last year; in 2020 about 43% of the imported gas came from Russia. Even during the depths of the Cold War, there’d never been a serious supply problem -- until the relationship with Russia deteriorated this year after it invaded Ukraine. Diversifying away from Russia, such as by increasing imports of liquefied natural gas, requires new infrastructure that takes a lot of time and money.

3. Why does it work this way? 
In theory, the relationship isn’t different from that with coal, for example. But production hiccups and heatwave curbs on plants from nuclear in France to hydro in Spain and Norway significantly changed the generation picture this year, and power hit records as plants buckled in the heat. Since coal-fired and nuclear plants are generally running all the time anyway, gas plants were being called upon more often -- at times just to keep the lights on as summer temperatures hit records. And with the war in Ukraine resulting in record gas prices, that pushed up overall production costs. It’s that relationship that has made the surging gas price the driver for electricity prices. And since the continent is all connected, it has pushed up prices across the region. The value of the European power market jumped threefold last year, to a record 836 billion euros ($827 billion today).

4. What’s being considered? 
With large parts of European industry on its knees and households facing jumps in energy bills of several hundred percent, as record electricity prices ripple through markets, the pressure on governments and the European Union to intervene has never been higher. One major proposal is to impose a price cap on electricity from non-gas producers, with the difference between that and the market price channeled to relief for consumers. While it sounds simple, any such changes would rip up a market design that’s worked for decades and could threaten future investments because of unintended consequences.

5. How did this market evolve?
The Nordic region and the British market were front-runners in the 1990s, then Germany followed and is now the largest by far. A trader can buy and sell electricity delivered later on same day in blocks of an hour or even down to 15-minute periods, to meet sudden demand or take advantage of price differentials. The price for these contracts is decided entirely by the supply and demand, how much the wind is blowing or which coal plants are operating, for example. Demand tends to surge early in the morning and late afternoon. This system was designed when fossil fuels provided the bulk of power. Now there are more renewables, which are less predictable, with wind and solar surpassing gas in EU generation last year, and the proposed changes reflect that shift. 

6. What else have governments done?
There are also traders who focus on longer-dated contracts covering periods several years ahead, where broader factors such as expected economic output and the extent to which renewables are crowding out gas help drive prices. This year’s wild price swings have prompted countries including Germany, Sweden and Finland to earmark billions of euros in emergency liquidity loans to backstop utilities hit with sudden margin calls on their trading.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Attosecond Electron Transport uses ultrafast lasers and single-cycle light pulses to drive tunneling in bowtie gold nanoantennas, enabling sub-femtosecond switching in optoelectronic nanostructures and surpassing picosecond silicon limits for next-gen computing.

Key Points

A light-driven method that manipulates electrons with ultrafast pulses to switch currents within attoseconds.

✅ Uses single-cycle light pulses to drive electron tunneling

✅ Achieves 600 attosecond current switching in nano-gaps

✅ Enables optoelectronic, plasmonic devices beyond silicon

When it comes to data transfer and computing, the faster we can shift electrons and conduct electricity the better – and scientists have just been able to transport electrons at sub-femtosecond speeds (less than one quadrillionth of a second) in an experimental setup.

The trick is manipulating the electrons with light waves that are specially crafted and produced by an ultrafast laser. It might be a long while before this sort of setup makes it into your laptop, but similar precision is seen in noninvasive interventions where targeted electrical stimulation can boost short-term memory for limited periods, and the fact they pulled it off promises a significant step forward in terms of what we can expect from our devices.

Right now, the fastest electronic components can be switched on or off in picoseconds (trillionths of a second), a pace that intersects with debates over 5G electricity use as systems scale, around 1,000 times slower than a femtosecond.

With their new method, the physicists were able to switch electric currents at around 600 attoseconds (one femtosecond is 1,000 attoseconds).

"This may well be the distant future of electronics," says physicist Alfred Leitenstorfer from the University of Konstanz in Germany. "Our experiments with single-cycle light pulses have taken us well into the attosecond range of electron transport."

Leitenstorfer and his colleagues were able to build a precise setup at the Centre for Applied Photonics in Konstanz. Their machinery included both the ability to carefully manipulate ultrashort light pulses, and to construct the necessary nanostructures, including graphene architectures, where appropriate.

The laser used by the team was able to push out one hundred million single-cycle light pulses every single second in order to generate a measurable current. Using nanoscale gold antennae in a bowtie shape (see the image above), the electric field of the pulse was concentrated down into a gap measuring just six nanometres wide (six thousand-millionths of a metre).

As a result of their specialist setup and the electron tunnelling and accelerating it produced, the researchers could switch electric currents at well under a femtosecond – less than half an oscillation period of the electric field of the light pulses.

Getting beyond the restrictions of conventional silicon semiconductor technology has proved a challenge for scientists, but using the insanely fast oscillations of light to help electrons pick up speed could provide new avenues for pushing the limits on electronics, as our power infrastructure is increasingly digitized and integrated with photonics.

And that's something that could be very advantageous in the next generation of computers: scientists are currently experimenting with the way that light and electronics could work together in all sorts of different ways, from noninvasive brain stimulation to novel sensors.

Eventually, Leitenstorfer and his team think that the limitations of today's computing systems could be overcome using plasmonic nanoparticles and optoelectronic devices, using the characteristics of light pulses to manipulate electrons at super-small scales, with related work even exploring electricity from snowfall under specific conditions.

"This is very basic research we are talking about here and may take decades to implement," says Leitenstorfer.

The next step is to experiment with a variety of different setups using the same principle. This approach might even offer insights into quantum computing, the researchers say, although there's a lot more work to get through yet - we can't wait to see what they'll achieve next.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

FirstEnergy Nuclear Plant Closures threaten Ohio and Pennsylvania jobs, tax revenue, and grid stability, as Nuclear Matters and Brattle Group warn of higher carbon emissions and market pressures from PJM and cheap natural gas.

Key Points

Planned shutdowns of Davis-Besse, Perry, and Beaver Valley, with regional economic and carbon impacts.

✅ Over 3,000 direct jobs and local tax revenue at risk

✅ Emissions may rise until renewables scale, possibly into 2034

✅ Debate over subsidies, market design, and PJM capacity rules

A national nuclear lobby wants to remind people what's at stake for Ohio and Pennsylvania if FirstEnergy Solutions follows through with plans to shut down three nuclear plants over the next three years, including its Davis-Besse nuclear plant east of Toledo.

A report issued Monday by Nuclear Matters largely echoes concerns raised by FES, a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp., and other supporters of nuclear power about economic and environmental hardships and brownout risks that will likely result from the planned closures.

Along with Davis-Besse, Perry nuclear plant east of Cleveland and the twin-reactor Beaver Valley nuclear complex west of Pittsburgh are slated to close.

#google#

"If these plants close, the livelihoods of thousands of Ohio and Pennsylvania residents will disappear. The over 3,000 highly skilled individuals directly employed by these sites will leave to seek employment at other facilities still operating around the country," Lonnie Stephenson, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers president, said in a statement distributed by Nuclear Matters. Mr. Stephenson also serves on the Nuclear Matters advocacy council.

This new report and others like it are part of an extensive campaign by nuclear energy advocates to court state and federal legislators one more time for tens of millions of dollars of financial support or at least legislation that better suits the nuclear industry. Critics allege such pleas amount to a request for massive government bailouts, arguing that deregulated electricity markets should not subsidize nuclear.

The latest report was prepared for Nuclear Matters by the Brattle Group, a firm that specializes in analyzing economic, finance, and regulatory issues for corporations, law firms, and governments.

"These announced retirements create a real urgency to learn what would happen if these plants are lost," Dean Murphy, the Brattle report's lead author, said.

More than 3,000 jobs would be lost, as would millions of dollars in tax revenue. It also could take as long as 2034 for the region's climate-altering carbon emissions to be brought back down to existing levels, based on current growth projections for solar- and wind-powered projects, and initiatives such as ending coal by 2032 by some utilities, Mr. Murphy said.

His group's report only takes into account nuclear plant operations, though. Many of those who oppose nuclear power have long pointed out that mining uranium for nuclear plant fuel generates substantial emissions, as does the process of producing steel cladding for fuel bundles and the enrichment-production of that fuel. Still, nuclear has ranked among the better performers in reports that have taken such a broader look at overall emissions.

FES has accused the regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, of creating market conditions that favor natural gas and, thus, make it almost impossible for nuclear to compete throughout its 13-state region, a debate intensified by proposed electricity pricing changes at the federal level.

PJM has strongly denied those accusations, and has said it anticipates no shortfalls in energy distribution if those nuclear plants close prematurely, even as a recent FERC decision on grid policy drew industry criticism.

FES, citing massive losses, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The target dates for closures of the FES properties are May 31, 2020 for Davis-Besse; May 31, 2021 for Perry and Beaver Valley Unit 1, and Oct. 31, 2021 for Beaver Valley Unit 2.

In addition to the three FES sites, the report includes information about the Three Mile Island Unit 1 plant near Harrisburg, Pa., which Chicago-based Exelon Generation Corp. has previously announced will be shut down in 2019. That plant and others are experiencing similar difficulties the FES plants face by competing in a market radically changed by record-low natural gas prices.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News