Installations of wind turbine power hit a record in the United States last year despite the financial crisis that choked off funding for half the year, wind power advocates said.
More than 10,000 megawatts of wind power capacity, or 5,700 turbines, were installed in 2009, the American Wind Energy Association said in its annual report, bringing the total capacity in the United States to 35,000 MW.
That kept the United States in the top spot globally for wind power, ahead of China and Germany, which each had about 25.8 MW of capacity. One megawatt is enough power for about 800 U.S. households.
The U.S. wind industry has grown 39 percent on average each of the last five years, and now employs about 85,000 people, many of them in states that have seen other industries close up factories in recent years, AWEA said.
We really are one of the only bright spots out there in terms of growing the manufacturing centers, AWEA Chief Executive Denise Bode told a press conference.
Turbine makers such as Vestas Wind Systems A/S Suzlon laid off employees in the first half of 2009 as orders slowed to a halt, but activity quickly rebounded after the federal government set rules that allowed companies to use U.S. stimulus funds to help support the industry.
It was a critical part of the success in 2009, said Don Furman, senior vice president for development at wind energy company Iberdrola Renewables, the second largest wind owner in the country behind FPL Groups NextEra Energy Resources.
The federal funds were issued through a grant system that replaced a tax credit program, allowing developers who had already built projects to be reimbursed for 30 percent of their construction costs. That helped offset funds that banks pulled out of the market when the credit crisis prompted them to halt lending.
Even with the steady industry growth, wind power generation reached only 1.8 percent of the countrys total, up from 1.3 percent at the end of 2008, AWEA said. Although, AWEA said it would cross the 2 percent threshhold this year.
Leading the nation in installed capacity is Texas, with 9,405 MW, followed by Iowa, with 3,679 MW, and California with 2,723 MW.
Even as fast as the U.S. market was growing, China was catching up quickly, according to Steve Sawyer, secretary general of the Global Wind Energy Council, and the Asian countrys energy appetite made it the largest new wind market in 2009.
Ultra-Low Overnight Price Plan delivers flexible electricity pricing from Hydro One and the Ontario Energy Board, with TOU, tiered options, off-peak EV charging savings, balanced billing, and an online calculator to optimize bills.
Key Points
An Ontario pricing option with ultra-low night rates, helping Hydro One customers save by shifting usage to off-peak.
✅ Four periods with ultra-low overnight rate for EV charging
✅ Compare TOU vs tiered with Hydro One's online calculator
✅ Balanced billing and due date choice support budget control
Hydro One has announced that customers have even more choice and flexibility when it comes to how they are billed for electricity with the company's launch of the Ontario Energy Board's new Ultra-Low Overnight Electricity Price Plan for customers. A new survey of Ontario customers, conducted by Innovative Research Group, shows that 74 per cent of Ontarians find having choice between electricity pricing plans useful.
"As their trusted energy advisor, we want our customers to know we have the insights and tools to help them make the right choice when it comes to their electricity plans," said Teri French, Executive Vice President, Safety, Operations and Customer Experience. "We know that choice and flexibility are important to our customers, and we are proud to now offer them a third option so they can select the plan that best fits their lifestyle."
The same survey revealed that fewer than half of Ontarians are familiar with either tiered or the new ultra-low overnight price plans. To better support its customers Hydro One is providing an online calculator to help them choose which pricing plan best suits their lifestyle. The company also offers additional flexibility and assistance in managing household budgets by providing customers with the ability to choose their billing due date and flatten usage spikes from temperature fluctuations through balanced billing.
During the pandemic, Ontario introduced electricity relief to support families, small businesses and farms, complementing these customer options.
"By offering families and small businesses more choice, we are putting them back in control of their energy bills," said Todd Smith, Minister of Energy. "Starting today Hydro One customers have a new option - the Ultra-Low Electricity Price Plan - which could help them save money each year, while making our province's grid more efficient."
Electricity price plan options
New Ultra-Low Overnight price plan (ULO): Designed for customers who use more electricity at night, such as those who charge their electric vehicle, this new price plan can help customers keep costs down and take control of their electricity bill by shifting usage to the ultra-low overnight price period and related off-peak electricity rates when province-wide electricity demand is lower.
This plan has four price periods that are the same in the summer as they are in the winter and includes an ultra-low overnight rate.
Time-of-Use price plan (TOU): TOU provides customers with more control over their electricity bill by adjusting their usage habits with time-of-use rates used in other jurisdictions as well.
In this plan, electricity prices change throughout each weekday, when demand is on-peak, and peak hydro rates can affect overall costs.
Tiered price plan (RPP): Tiered pricing provides customers with the flexibility to use electricity at any time of day at the same low price up until the threshold is exceeded during the month, after that usage is charged at a higher price.
For residential customers, the winter period (November 1 – April 30) threshold is 1,000 kWh per month and the summer period (May 1 – October 31) threshold is 600 kWh per month.
For small business customers, the threshold is 750 kWh throughout the year, while broader stable electricity pricing supports industrial and commercial companies.
ITER Nuclear Fusion advances tokamak magnetic confinement, heating deuterium-tritium plasma with superconducting magnets, targeting net energy gain, tritium breeding, and steam-turbine power, while complementing laser inertial confinement milestones for grid-scale electricity and 2025 startup goals.
Key Points
ITER Nuclear Fusion is a tokamak project confining D-T plasma with magnets to achieve net energy gain and clean power.
✅ Tokamak magnetic confinement with high-temp superconducting coils
✅ Deuterium-tritium fuel cycle with on-site tritium breeding
✅ Targets net energy gain and grid-scale, low-carbon electricity
It sounds like the stuff of dreams: a virtually limitless source of energy that doesn’t produce greenhouse gases or radioactive waste. That’s the promise of nuclear fusion, often described as the holy grail of clean energy by proponents, which for decades has been nothing more than a fantasy due to insurmountable technical challenges. But things are heating up in what has turned into a race to create what amounts to an artificial sun here on Earth, one that can provide power for our kettles, cars and light bulbs.
Today’s nuclear power plants create electricity through nuclear fission, in which atoms are split, with next-gen nuclear power exploring smaller, cheaper, safer designs that remain distinct from fusion. Nuclear fusion however, involves combining atomic nuclei to release energy. It’s the same reaction that’s taking place at the Sun’s core. But overcoming the natural repulsion between atomic nuclei and maintaining the right conditions for fusion to occur isn’t straightforward. And doing so in a way that produces more energy than the reaction consumes has been beyond the grasp of the finest minds in physics for decades.
But perhaps not for much longer. Some major technical challenges have been overcome in the past few years and governments around the world have been pouring money into fusion power research as part of a broader green industrial revolution under way in several regions. There are also over 20 private ventures in the UK, US, Europe, China and Australia vying to be the first to make fusion energy production a reality.
“People are saying, ‘If it really is the ultimate solution, let’s find out whether it works or not,’” says Dr Tim Luce, head of science and operation at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), being built in southeast France. ITER is the biggest throw of the fusion dice yet.
Its $22bn (£15.9bn) build cost is being met by the governments of two-thirds of the world’s population, including the EU, the US, China and Russia, at a time when Europe is losing nuclear power and needs energy, and when it’s fired up in 2025 it’ll be the world’s largest fusion reactor. If it works, ITER will transform fusion power from being the stuff of dreams into a viable energy source.
Constructing a nuclear fusion reactor ITER will be a tokamak reactor – thought to be the best hope for fusion power. Inside a tokamak, a gas, often a hydrogen isotope called deuterium, is subjected to intense heat and pressure, forcing electrons out of the atoms. This creates a plasma – a superheated, ionised gas – that has to be contained by intense magnetic fields.
The containment is vital, as no material on Earth could withstand the intense heat (100,000,000°C and above) that the plasma has to reach so that fusion can begin. It’s close to 10 times the heat at the Sun’s core, and temperatures like that are needed in a tokamak because the gravitational pressure within the Sun can’t be recreated.
When atomic nuclei do start to fuse, vast amounts of energy are released. While the experimental reactors currently in operation release that energy as heat, in a fusion reactor power plant, the heat would be used to produce steam that would drive turbines to generate electricity, even as some envision nuclear beyond electricity for industrial heat and fuels.
Tokamaks aren’t the only fusion reactors being tried. Another type of reactor uses lasers to heat and compress a hydrogen fuel to initiate fusion. In August 2021, one such device at the National Ignition Facility, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, generated 1.35 megajoules of energy. This record-breaking figure brings fusion power a step closer to net energy gain, but most hopes are still pinned on tokamak reactors rather than lasers.
In June 2021, China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor maintained a plasma for 101 seconds at 120,000,000°C. Before that, the record was 20 seconds. Ultimately, a fusion reactor would need to sustain the plasma indefinitely – or at least for eight-hour ‘pulses’ during periods of peak electricity demand.
A real game-changer for tokamaks has been the magnets used to produce the magnetic field. “We know how to make magnets that generate a very high magnetic field from copper or other kinds of metal, but you would pay a fortune for the electricity. It wouldn’t be a net energy gain from the plant,” says Luce.
One route for nuclear fusion is to use atoms of deuterium and tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen. They fuse under incredible heat and pressure, and the resulting products release energy as heat
The solution is to use high-temperature, superconducting magnets made from superconducting wire, or ‘tape’, that has no electrical resistance. These magnets can create intense magnetic fields and don’t lose energy as heat.
“High temperature superconductivity has been known about for 35 years. But the manufacturing capability to make tape in the lengths that would be required to make a reasonable fusion coil has just recently been developed,” says Luce. One of ITER’s magnets, the central solenoid, will produce a field of 13 tesla – 280,000 times Earth’s magnetic field.
The inner walls of ITER’s vacuum vessel, where the fusion will occur, will be lined with beryllium, a metal that won’t contaminate the plasma much if they touch. At the bottom is the divertor that will keep the temperature inside the reactor under control.
“The heat load on the divertor can be as large as in a rocket nozzle,” says Luce. “Rocket nozzles work because you can get into orbit within minutes and in space it’s really cold.” In a fusion reactor, a divertor would need to withstand this heat indefinitely and at ITER they’ll be testing one made out of tungsten.
Meanwhile, in the US, the National Spherical Torus Experiment – Upgrade (NSTX-U) fusion reactor will be fired up in the autumn of 2022, while efforts in advanced fission such as a mini-reactor design are also progressing. One of its priorities will be to see whether lining the reactor with lithium helps to keep the plasma stable.
Choosing a fuel Instead of just using deuterium as the fusion fuel, ITER will use deuterium mixed with tritium, another hydrogen isotope. The deuterium-tritium blend offers the best chance of getting significantly more power out than is put in. Proponents of fusion power say one reason the technology is safe is that the fuel needs to be constantly fed into the reactor to keep fusion happening, making a runaway reaction impossible.
Deuterium can be extracted from seawater, so there’s a virtually limitless supply of it. But only 20kg of tritium are thought to exist worldwide, so fusion power plants will have to produce it (ITER will develop technology to ‘breed’ tritium). While some radioactive waste will be produced in a fusion plant, it’ll have a lifetime of around 100 years, rather than the thousands of years from fission.
At the time of writing in September, researchers at the Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor in Oxfordshire were due to start their deuterium-tritium fusion reactions. “JET will help ITER prepare a choice of machine parameters to optimise the fusion power,” says Dr Joelle Mailloux, one of the scientific programme leaders at JET. These parameters will include finding the best combination of deuterium and tritium, and establishing how the current is increased in the magnets before fusion starts.
The groundwork laid down at JET should accelerate ITER’s efforts to accomplish net energy gain. ITER will produce ‘first plasma’ in December 2025 and be cranked up to full power over the following decade. Its plasma temperature will reach 150,000,000°C and its target is to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power for every 50 megawatts of input heating power.
“If ITER is successful, it’ll eliminate most, if not all, doubts about the science and liberate money for technology development,” says Luce. That technology development will be demonstration fusion power plants that actually produce electricity, where advanced reactors can build on decades of expertise. “ITER is opening the door and saying, yeah, this works – the science is there.”
Minnesota Electric Cooperatives are driving grid innovation with smart meters, time-of-use pricing, demand response, and energy storage, including iron-air batteries, to manage peak loads, integrate wind and solar, and cut costs for rural members.
Key Points
Member-owned utilities piloting load management, meters, and storage to integrate wind and solar, cutting peak demand.
✅ Time-of-use pricing pilots lower bills and shift peak load.
✅ Iron-air battery tests add multi-day, low-cost energy storage.
✅ Smart meters enable demand response across rural co-ops.
Minnesota electric cooperatives have quietly emerged as laboratories for clean grid innovation, outpacing investor-owned utilities on smart meter installations, time-based pricing pilots, and experimental battery storage solutions.
“Co-ops have innovation in their DNA,” said David Ranallo, a spokesperson for Great River Energy, a generation and distribution cooperative that supplies power to 28 member utilities — making it one of the state’s largest co-op players.
Minnesota farmers helped pioneer the electric co-op model more than a century ago, similar to modern community-generated green electricity initiatives, pooling resources to build power lines, transformers and other equipment to deliver power to rural parts of the state. Today, 44 member-owned electric co-ops serve about 1.7 million rural and suburban customers and supply almost a quarter of the state’s electricity.
Co-op utilities have by many measures lagged on clean energy. Many still rely on electricity from coal-fired power plants. They’ve used political clout with rural lawmakers to oppose new pollution regulations and climate legislation, and some have tried to levy steep fees on customers who install solar panels.
Where they are emerging as innovators is with new models and technology for managing electric grid loads — from load-shifting water heaters to a giant experimental battery made of iron. The programs are saving customers money by delaying the need for expensive new infrastructure, and also showing ways to unlock more value from cheap but variable wind and solar power.
Unlike investor-owned utilities, “we have no incentive to invest in new generation,” said Darrick Moe, executive director of the Minnesota Rural Electric Association. Curbing peak energy demand has a direct financial benefit for members.
Minnesota electric cooperatives have launched dozens of programs, such as the South Metro solar project, in recent years aimed at reducing energy use and peak loads, in particular. They include:
Cost calculations are the primary driver for electric cooperatives’ recent experimentation, and a lighter regulatory structure and evolving electricity market reforms have allowed them to act more quickly than for-profit utilities.
“Co-ops and [municipal utilities] can act a lot more nimbly compared to investor-owned utilities … which have to go through years of proceedings and discussions about cost-recovery,” said Gabe Chan, a University of Minnesota associate professor who has researched electric co-ops extensively. Often, approval from a local board is all that’s required to launch a venture.
Great River Energy’s programs, which are rebranded and sold through member co-ops, yielded more than 101 million kilowatt-hours of savings last year — enough to power 9,500 homes for a year.
Beyond lowering costs for participants and customers at large, the energy-saving and behavior-changing programs sometimes end up being cited as case studies by larger utilities considering similar offerings. Advocates supporting a proposal by the city of Minneapolis and CenterPoint Energy to allow residents to pay for energy efficiency improvements on their utility bills through distributed energy rebates used several examples from cooperatives.
Despite the pace of innovation on load management, electric cooperatives have been relatively slow to transition from coal-fired power. More than half of Great River Energy’s electricity came from coal last year, and Dairyland Power, another major power wholesaler for Minnesota co-ops, generated 70% of its energy from coal. Meanwhile, Xcel Energy, the state’s largest investor-owned utility, has already reduced coal to about 20% of its energy mix.
The transition to cleaner power for some co-ops has been slowed by long-term contracts with power suppliers that have locked them into dirty power. Others have also been stalled by management or boards that have been resistant to change. John Farrell, director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s Energy Democracy program, said generalizing co-ops is difficult.
“We’ve seen some co-ops that have got 75-year contracts for coal, that are invested in coal mines and using their newsletter to deny climate change,” he said. “Then you see a lot of them doing really amazing things like creating energy storage systems … and load balancing [programs], because they are unique and locally managed and can have that freedom to experiment without having to go through a regulatory process.”
Great River Energy, for its part, says it intends to reach 54% renewable generation by 2025, while some communities, like Frisco, Colorado, are targeting 100% clean electricity by specific dates. Its members recently voted to sell North Dakota’s largest coal plant, but the arrangement involves members continuing to buy power from the new owners for another decade.
The cooperative’s path to clean power could become clearer if its experimental iron-air battery project is successful. The project, the first of its kind in the country, is expected to be completed by 2023.
Alberta Electricity Price Hikes spotlight grid reliability, renewable transition, coal phase-out, and energy poverty, as policy shifts and investor reports warn of rate increases, biomass trade-offs, and sustainability challenges impacting households and businesses.
Key Points
Projected power bill hikes from market reforms, renewables, coal phase-out, and reliability costs in Alberta.
✅ Policy missteps cited in Ontario, Germany, Australia price spikes
✅ Debate: retain coal vs. speed renewables, storage, and grid upgrades
Since when did electricity become a scarce resource?
I thought all the talk about greening the grid was about having renewable, sustainable, less polluting options to fulfill our growing need for power. Yet, increasingly, we are faced with news stories that indicate using power is bad in and of itself, even as flat electricity demand worries utilities.
The implication, I guess, is that we should be using less of it. But, I don’t want to use less electricity. I want to be able to watch TV, turn my lights on when the sun sets at 4 p.m. in the winter, keep my food cold and power my devices.
We once had a consensus that a reliable supply of power was essential to a growing economy and a high quality of life, a point underscored by brownout risks in U.S. markets.
I’m beginning to wonder if we still have that consensus.
And more importantly, if our decision makers have determined electricity is a vice as opposed to an essential of life – as debates over Alberta electricity policy suggest – you know what is going to happen next. Prices are going to rise, forcing all of us to use less.
How much would it hurt your bottom line if your electricity bill went up three-fold? How about seven-fold? That is the grim picture that Todd Beasley painted for us on Tuesday’s show.
Last week, he launched a campaign on behalf of Albertans for Sustainable Electricity, called Stop the Shock. He shared the results of an internal investor report that concluded Alberta’s power market overhaul would cost an estimated $50 billion to implement and could result in a three to seven-fold increase in electricity bills.
Now, my typical power bill averages $70 a month. That would be like having it grow to $210 a month, or just over $2,500 a year. If it’s a seven-fold increase that would be more like $5,000 a year. That may be manageable for some families, but I can think of a lot of things I’d rather do with $5,000 than pay more to keep my fridge running so my food doesn’t spoil.
For low-income families that would be a real hardship.
Beasley said Ontario’s inept handling of its electricity market and the phase-out of coal power resulted in price spikes that left more than 70,000 individuals facing energy poverty.
Germany and Australia realized they made the same mistake and are returning some electricity to coal.
Beasley shared a long list of Canadian firms – including our own Canadian Pension Plan – that are investing in coal development around the world. Meanwhile, Canadian governments remain in a mad rush to phase it out here. That’s not the only hypocrisy.
Rupert Darwall, author of Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex, revealed in a recent column what he calls “the scandal at the heart of the EU’s renewable policies.”
Turns out most of their expansion in renewable energy has come from biomass in the form of wood. Not only does burning wood produce more CO2, it also eliminates carbon sinks.
To meet the EU’s 2030 target would require cutting down trees equivalent to the combined harvest in Canada and the United States. As he puts it, “Whichever way you look at it, burning the world’s carbon sinks to meet the EU’s arbitrary renewable energy targets is environmentally insane.”
Beasley’s group is trying to bring some sanity back to the discussion. The goal should be to move to a greener grid while maintaining abundant, reliable and cheap power, and examples like Texas grid improvements show practical steps. He thinks to achieve all these goals, coal should remain part of the mix. What do you think?
U.S. Utility Spending Shift highlights rising transmission and distribution costs, grid modernization, and smart meters, while generation expenses decline amid fuel price volatility, capital and labor pressures, and renewable integration across the power sector.
Key Points
A decade-long trend where utilities spend more on delivery and grid upgrades, and less on electricity generation costs.
✅ Delivery O&M, wires, poles, and meters drive rising costs
✅ Generation spending declines amid fuel price changes and PPI
✅ Grid upgrades add reliability, resilience, and renewable integration
Over the past decade, major utilities in the United States have been spending more on delivering electricity to customers and less on producing that electricity, a shift occurring as electricity demand is flat across many regions.
After adjusting for inflation, major utilities spent 2.6 cents per kilowatthour (kWh) on electricity delivery in 2010, using 2020 dollars. In comparison, spending on delivery was 65% higher in 2020 at 4.3 cents/kWh, and residential bills rose in 2022 as inflation persisted. Conversely, utility spending on power production decreased from 6.8 cents/kWh in 2010 (using 2020 dollars) to 4.6 cents/kWh in 2020.
Utility spending on electricity delivery includes the money spent to build, operate, and maintain the electric wires, poles, towers, and meters that make up the transmission and distribution system. In real 2020 dollar terms, spending on electricity delivery increased every year from 1998 to 2020 as utilities worked to replace aging equipment, build transmission infrastructure to accommodate new wind and solar generation amid clean energy transition challenges that affect costs, and install new technologies such as smart meters to increase the efficiency, reliability, resilience, and security of the U.S. power grid.
Spending on power production includes the money spent to build, operate, fuel, and maintain power plants, as well as the cost to purchase power in cases where the utility either does not own generators or does not generate enough to fulfill customer demand. Spending on electricity production includes the cost of fuels including natural gas prices alongside capital, labor, and building materials, as well as the type of generators being built.
Other utility spending on electricity includes general and administrative expenses, general infrastructure such as office space, and spending on intangible goods such as licenses and franchise fees, even as electricity sales declined in recent years.
The retail price of electricity reflects the cost to produce and deliver power, the rate of return on investment that regulated utilities are allowed, and profits for unregulated power suppliers, and, as electricity prices at 41-year high have been reported, these components have drawn increased scrutiny.
In 2021, demand for consumer goods and the energy needed to produce them has been outpacing supply, though power demand sliding in 2023 with milder weather has also been noted. This difference has contributed to higher prices for fuels used by electric generators, especially natural gas. The increased cost for fuel, capital, labor, and building materials, as seen in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Producer Price Index, is increasing the cost of power production for 2021. U.S. average electricity prices have been higher every month of this year compared with 2020, according to our Monthly Electric Power Industry Report.
✅ Gas-driven plants add efficient, flexible capacity and jobs
✅ Nuclear subsidies distort market signals and raise costs
For decades, the government regulation of Pennsylvania's electricity markets dictated all aspects of power generation resources in the state, thus restricting market-driven prices for consumers and hindering new power plant development and investment.
Deregulation has enabled competitive markets to drive energy prices downward, as recent grid auction payouts fell 64% indicate, which has transformed Pennsylvania from a higher-electricity-cost state to one with prices below the national average.
Recently, the economic advantage of abundant low-cost natural gas has spurred an influx of billions of dollars of private capital investment and thousands of jobs to construct environmentally responsible natural gas power generation facilities throughout the commonwealth — including our three power generation facilities in operation and one presently under construction.
Calpine is an independent power provider with a national portfolio of 80 highly efficient power plants in operation or under construction with an electric generating capacity of approximately 26,000 megawatts. Collectively, these resources can provide sufficient power for more than 30 million residential homes. We are not a regulated utility receiving a guaranteed rate of return on investment. Rather, Calpine competes to sell wholesale power into the electric markets, and the economics of supply and demand are fundamental to the success of our business.
Pennsylvania's deregulated electricity market is working. Consumers are benefiting from low-cost natural gas, as broader evidence shows competition benefits consumers and the environment across markets, and companies such as Calpine are investing billions of dollars and creating thousands of jobs to build advanced, energy efficient, environmentally responsible and flexible power generating facilities.
There are presently seven electric generating projects under construction in the commonwealth, representing about a $7 billion capital investment that will produce about 7,000 megawatts of efficient electrical power, with additional facilities being planned.
Looking back 20 years following the enactment of the Pennsylvania Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act, Pennsylvania's regulators and policymakers must conclude that the results of a free and fair market-driven structure have delivered indisputable benefits to the consumer, even amid potential winter rate spikes for residents, and the Pennsylvania economy.
While consumers are now reaping the benefits of open and competitive electricity markets, we see challenges on the horizon that could threaten the foundation of those markets. Due to pressure from nuclear power generators, state policymakers throughout the nation have been increasing efforts to impact the generation mix in their respective states by offering ratepayer funded subsidies to existing nuclear generation resources or by considering a market structure overhaul in New England.
Subsidizing one power generation type over others is having a significant, negative impact on wholesale electric markets, competitive retails markets and ultimately the cost the consumer will have to pay, and can exacerbate disruptions in coal and nuclear industries that strain the economy and risk brownouts.
In Pennsylvania, these subsidies would follow nearly $9 billion already paid by ratepayers to help the commonwealth's nuclear industry transition from regulated to competitive energy markets.
The deregulation of Pennsylvania's electricity markets in the late 1990s allowed the nuclear industry to receive billions of dollars from ratepayers to recover "stranded costs" related to investments in the commonwealth's nuclear plants. These costs were negotiated amounts based on settlements with Pennsylvania's Public Utility Commission to allow the nuclear industry to prepare and transition to competitive electricity markets.
Enough is enough. Regulatory or governmental interference in well functioning markets does not lead to better outcomes. Pennsylvania's state Legislature should not pick winners and losers by enacting legislation that would create an uneven playing field that subsidizes nuclear generating resources in the commonwealth.
William Ferguson is regional vice president for Calpine Corp.
