Utility workers killed at power plant

Georgia Power June bill credit delivers PSC-approved savings, lower fuel rates, and COVID-19 relief for residential customers, driven by natural gas prices and 2018 earnings, with typical 1,000 kWh users seeing June bill reductions.

Key Points

A PSC-approved one-time credit and lower fuel rates reducing June bills for Georgia Power residential customers.

✅ $11.29 credit for 1,000 kWh usage on June bills

✅ Fuel rate cut saves $10.26 per month from June to September 2020

✅ PSC-approved $51.5M credit based on Georgia Power's 2018 results

Georgia Power announced that the typical residential customer using 1,000-kilowatt hours will receive an $11.29 credit on their June bill, reflecting a lump-sum credit model also used elsewhere.

This reflects implementation of a one-time $51.5 million credit for customers, similar to Gulf Power's bill decrease efforts, approved by the Georgia Public Service Commission, as a result of

Georgia Power's 2018 financial results.

Pairing the June credit with new, lower fuel rates recently announced, the typical residential customer would see a reduction of $21.55 in June, even as some regions face increases like Pennsylvania's winter price hikes elsewhere.

The amount each customer receives will vary based on their 2018 usage. Georgia Power will apply the credit to June bills for customers who had active accounts as of Dec. 31, 2018, and are still active or receiving a final bill as of June 2020, and the company has issued pandemic scam warnings to help customers stay informed.

Fuel rate lowered 17.2 percent

In addition to the approved one-time credit in June, the Georgia PSC recently approved Georgia Power’s plan to reduce its fuel rates by 17.2 percent and total billings by approximately $740 million over a two-year period. The implementation of a special interim reduction will provide customers additional relief during the COVID-19 pandemic through even lower fuel rates over the upcoming 2020 summer months. The lower fuel rate and special interim reduction will lower the total bill of a typical residential customer using an average of 1,000-kilowatt hours by a total of $10.26 per month from June through September 2020.

The reduction in the company’s fuel rate is driven primarily by lower natural gas prices, even as FPL proposed multiyear rate hikes in Florida, as a result of increased natural gas supplies, which the company is able to take advantage of to benefit customers due to its diverse generation sources.

February bill credit due to tax law savings

Georgia Power completed earlier this year the third and final bill credit associated with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, resulting in credits totaling $106 million. The typical residential customer using an average of 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month received a credit of approximately $22 on their February Georgia Power bill, a helpful offset as U.S. electric bills rose 5% in 2022 according to national data.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S.-Canada Energy and Minerals Partnership strengthens energy security, critical minerals supply chains, and climate objectives with clean oil and gas, EV batteries, methane reductions, cross-border grid reliability, and allied trade, countering Russia and China dependencies.

Key Points

A North American alliance to secure energy, refine critical minerals, cut emissions, and fortify supply chains.

✅ Integrates oil, gas, and electricity trade for reliability

✅ Builds EV battery and critical minerals processing capacity

✅ Reduces methane, diversifies away from Russia and China

Today, U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, delivered the following remarks during a full committee hearing to examine ways to strengthen the energy and mineral partnership between the U.S. and Canada to address energy security and climate objectives.

The hearing also featured testimony from the Honorable Jason Kenney (Premier, Alberta, Canada), the Honorable Nathalie Camden (Associate Deputy Minister of Mines, Ministry of Energy and Natural Resource, Québec, Canada), the Honorable Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister, Natural Resources Canada) and Mr. Francis Bradley (President and CEO, Electricity Canada). Click here to read their testimony.

Chairman Manchin’s remarks can be viewed as prepared here or read below:

Today we’re welcoming our friends from the North, from Canada, to continue this committee’s very important conversation about how we pursue two critical goals – ensuring energy security and addressing climate change.

These two goals aren’t mutually exclusive, and it’s imperative that we address both.

We all agree that Putin has used Russia’s oil and gas resources as a weapon to inflict terrible pain on the Ukrainian people and on Europe.

And other energy-rich autocracies are taking note. We’d be fools to think Xi Jinping won’t consider using a similar playbook, leveraging China’s control over global critical minerals supply chains.

But Putin’s aggression is bringing the free world closer together, setting the stage for a new alliance around energy, minerals, and climate.
Building this alliance should start here in North America. And that’s why I’m excited to hear today about how we can strengthen the energy and minerals partnership between the U.S. and Canada.

I recently had the privilege of being hosted in Alberta by Premier Kenney, where I spent two days getting a better understanding of our energy, minerals, and manufacturing partnership through meetings with representatives from Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories, the federal government, and tribal and industry partners.

Canadians and Americans share a deep history and are natural partners, sharing the longest land border on the planet.

Our people fought side-by-side in two world wars. In fact, some of the uranium used by the Manhattan Project and broader nuclear innovation was mined in Canada’s Northwest Territories and refined in Ontario.

We have cultivated a strong manufacturing partnership, particularly in the automotive industry, with Canada today being our biggest export market for vehicles. Cars assembled in Canada contain, on average, more than 50% of U.S. value and parts.

Today we also trade over 58 terawatt hours of electricity, including green power from Canada across the border, 2.4 billion barrels of petroleum products, and 3.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas each year.

In fact, energy alone represents $120 billion of the annual trade between our countries. Across all sectors the U.S. and Canada trade more than $2 billion per day.
There is no better symbol of our energy relationship than our interconnected power grid and evolving clean grids that are seamless and integral for the reliable and affordable electricity citizens and industries in both our countries depend on.

And we’re here for each other during times of need. Electricity workers from both the U.S. and Canada regularly cross the border after extreme weather events to help get the power back on.

Canada has ramped up oil exports to the U.S. to offset Russian crude after members of our committee led legislation to cut off the energy purchases fueling Putin’s war machine.

Canada is also a leading supplier of uranium and critical minerals to the U.S., including those used in advanced batteries—such as cobalt, graphite, and nickel.
The U.S-Canada energy partnership is strong, but also not without its challenges, including tariff threats that affect projects on both sides. I’ve not been shy in expressing my frustration that the Biden administration cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline.

In light of Putin’s war in Ukraine and the global energy price surge, I think a lot of us wish that project had moved forward.

But to be clear, I’m not holding this hearing to re-litigate the past. We are here to advance a stronger and cleaner U.S.-Canada energy partnership for the future.
Our allies and trading partners in Europe are begging for North American oil and gas to offset their reliance on Russia.

There is no reason whatsoever we shouldn’t be able to fill that void, and do it cleaner than the alternatives.

That’s because American oil and gas is cleaner than what is produced in Russia – and certainly in Iran and Venezuela. We can do better, and learn from our Canadian neighbors.

On average, Canada produces oil with 37% lower methane emissions than the U.S., and the Canadian federal government has set even more aggressive methane reduction targets.

That’s what I mean by climate and security not being mutually exclusive – replacing Russian product has the added benefit of reducing the emissions profile of the energy Europe needs today.

According to the International Energy Agency, stationary and electric vehicle batteries will account for about half of the mineral demand growth from clean energy technologies over the next twenty years.

Unfortunately, China controls 80% of the world’s battery material processing, 60% of the world’s cathode production, 80% of the world’s anode production, and 75% of the world’s lithium ion battery cell production. They’ve cornered the market.

I also strongly believe we need to be taking national energy security into account as we invest in climate solutions.

It makes no sense whatsoever for us to so heavily invest in electric vehicles as a climate solution when that means increasing our reliance on China, because right now we’re not simultaneously increasing our mining, processing, and recycling capacity at the same rate in the United States.

The Canadians are ahead of us on critical minerals refining and processing, and we have much to learn from them about how they’re able to responsibly permit these activities in timelines that blow ours out of the water.

I’m sure our Canadian friends are happy to export minerals to us, but let me be clear, the United States also needs to contribute our part to a North American minerals alliance.

So I’m interested in discussing how we can create an integrated network for raw minerals to move across our borders for processing and manufacturing in both of our countries, and how B.C. critical minerals decisions may affect that.

I believe there is much we can collaborate on with Canada to create a powerful North American critical minerals supply chain instead of increasing China’s geopolitical leverage.

During this time when the U.S., Canada, and our allies and friends are threatened both by dictators weaponizing energy and by intense politicization over climate issues, we must work together to chart a responsible path forward that will ensure security and unlock prosperity for our nations.

We are the superpower of the world, and blessed with abundant energy and minerals resources. We cannot just sit back and let other countries fill the void and find ourselves in a more dire situation in the years ahead.

We must be leaning into the responsible production of all the energy sources we’re going to need, and strengthening strategic partnerships – building a North American Energy Alliance.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

Columbia River Treaty Negotiations involve Canada-U.S. talks on B.C. dams, flood control, hydropower sharing, and downstream benefits, prioritizing ecosystem health, First Nations rights, and salmon restoration while balancing affordable electricity for northwest consumers.

Key Points

Talks to update flood control, hydropower, and ecosystem terms for fair benefits to B.C. and U.S. communities.

✅ Public consultations across B.C.'s Columbia Basin

✅ First Nations priorities include salmon restoration

✅ U.S. seeks cheaper power; B.C. defends downstream benefits

With talks underway between Canada and the U.S. on the future of the Columbia River Treaty, the B.C. New Democrats have launched public consultations in the region most affected by the high-stakes negotiation.

“We want to ensure Columbia basin communities are consulted, kept informed and have their voices heard,” said provincial cabinet minister Katrine Conroy via a press release announcing meetings this month in Castlegar, Golden, Revelstoke, Nakusp, Nelson and other communities.

As well as having cabinet responsibility for the talks, Conroy’s Kootenay West riding includes several places that were inundated under the terms of the 1964 flood control and power generation treaty.

“We will continue to work closely with First Nations affected by the treaty, to ensure Indigenous interests are reflected in the negotiations,” she added by way of consolation to Indigenous people who’ve been excluded from the negotiating teams on both sides of the border.

#google#

The stakes are also significant for the province as a whole. The basics of the treaty saw B.C. build dams to store water on this side of the border, easing the flood risk in the U.S. and allowing the flow to be evened out through the year. In exchange, B.C. was entitled to a share of the additional hydro power that could be generated in dams on the U.S. side.

B.C.’s sale of those downstream benefits to the U.S has poured almost $1.4 billion into provincial coffers over the past 10 years, albeit at a declining rate these days amid scrutiny from a regulator report on BC Hydro that raised concerns, because of depressed prices for cross-border electricity sales.

Politicians on the U.S. side have long sought to reopen the treaty, believing there was now a case for reducing B.C.’s entitlement.

They did not get across the threshold under President Barack Obama.

Then, last fall his successor Donald Trump served notice of intent, initiating the formal negotiations that commenced with a two day session last week in Washington, D.C. The next round is set for mid-August in B.C.

American objectives in the talks include “continued, careful management of flood risk; ensuring a reliable and economical power supply; and better addressing ecosystem concerns,” with recognition of recent BC Hydro demand declines during the pandemic.

“Economical power supply,” being a diplomatic euphemism for “cheaper electricity for consumers in the northwest states,” achievable by clawing back most of B.C.’s treaty entitlement.

On taking office last summer, the NDP inherited a 14-point statement of principles setting out B.C. hopes for negotiations to “continue the treaty” while “seeking improvements within the existing framework” of the 54-year-old agreement.

The New Democrats have endorsed those principles in a spirit of bipartisanship, even as Manitoba Hydro governance disputes play out elsewhere in Canada.

“Those principles were developed with consultation from throughout the region,” as Conroy advised the legislature this spring. “So I was involved, as well, in the process and knew what the issues were, right as they would come up.”

The New Democrats did chose to put additional emphasis on some concerns.

“There is an increase in discussion with Canada and First Nations on the return of salmon to the river,” she advised the house, recalling how construction of the enormous Grand Coulee Dam on the U.S. side in the 1930s wiped out salmon runs on the upper Columbia River.

“There was no consideration then for how incredibly important salmon was, especially to the First Nations people in our region. We have an advisory table that is made up of Indigenous representation from our region, and also we are discussing with Canada that we need to see if there’s feasibility here.”

As to feasibility, the obstacles to salmon migration in the upper reaches of the Columbia include the 168-metre high Grand Coulee and the 72-metre Chief Joseph dams on the U.S. side, plus the Keenleyside (52 metres), Revelstoke (175 metres) and Mica (240 metres) dams on the Canadian side.

Still, says Conroy “the First Nations from Canada and the tribes from the United States, have been working on scientific and technical documents and research to see if, first of all, the salmon can come up, how they can come up, and what the things are that have to be done to ensure that happens.”

The New Democrats also put more emphasis on preserving the ecosystem, aligning with clean-energy efforts with First Nations that support regional sustainability.

“I know that certainly didn’t happen in 1964, but that is something that’s very much on the minds of people in the Columbia basin,” said Conroy. “If we are going to tweak the treaty, what can we do to make sure the voices of the basin are heard and that things that were under no consideration in the ’60s are now a topic for consideration?”

With those new considerations, there’s still the status quo concern of preserving the downstream benefits as a trade off for the flooding and other impacts on this side of the border.

The B.C. position on that score is the same under the New Democrats as it was under the Liberals, despite a B.C. auditor general report on deferred BC Hydro costs.

“The level of benefits to B.C., which is currently solely in the form of the (electricity) entitlement, does not account for the full range of benefits in the U.S. or the impacts in B.C.,” says the statement of principle.

“All downstream U.S. benefits such as flood risk management, hydropower, ecosystems, water supply (including municipal, industrial and agricultural uses), recreation, navigation and other related benefits should be accounted for and such value created should be shared equitably between the two countries.”

No surprise if the Americans do not see it the same way.  But that is a topic for another day.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

US Control of Ukraine Nuclear Plants sparks debate over ZNPP, Zaporizhzhia, sovereignty, safety, ownership, and international cooperation, as Washington touts utility expertise, investment, and modernization to protect critical energy infrastructure amid conflict.

Key Points

US management proposal for Ukraine's nuclear assets, notably ZNPP, balancing sovereignty, safety, and investment.

✅ Ukraine retains ownership; any transfer requires parliament approval.

✅ ZNPP safety risks persist amid occupation near active conflict.

✅ International reactions split: sovereignty vs. cooperation and investment.

In a recent phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, U.S. President Donald Trump proposed that the United States take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants, including the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), which has been under Russian occupation since early in the war and where Russia is reportedly building power lines to reactivate the plant amid ongoing tensions. Trump suggested that American ownership of these plants could be the best protection for their infrastructure, a proposal that has sparked controversy in policy circles, and that the U.S. could assist in running them with its electricity and utility expertise.

Ukrainian Response

President Zelenskyy promptly addressed Trump's proposal, stating that while the conversation focused on the ZNPP, the issue of ownership was not discussed. He emphasized that all of Ukraine's nuclear power plants belong to the Ukrainian people and that any transfer of ownership would require parliamentary approval . Zelenskyy clarified that while the U.S. could invest in and help modernize the ZNPP, ownership would remain with Ukraine.

Security Concerns

The ZNPP, Europe's largest nuclear facility, has been non-operational since its occupation by Russian forces in 2022. The plant's location near active conflict zones raises significant safety risks that the IAEA has warned of in connection with attacks on Ukraine's power grids, and its future remains uncertain. Ukrainian officials have expressed concerns about potential Russian provocations, such as explosions, especially after UN inspectors reported mines at the Zaporizhzhia plant near key facilities, if and when Ukraine attempts to regain control of the plant.

International Reactions

The proposal has elicited mixed reactions both within Ukraine and internationally. Some Ukrainian officials view it as an opportunistic move by the U.S. to gain control over critical infrastructure, while others see it as a potential avenue for modernization and investment, alongside expanding wind power that is harder to destroy in wartime. The international community remains divided on the issue, with some supporting Ukraine's sovereignty over its nuclear assets and others advocating for a possible agreement on power plant attacks to ensure the plant's safety and future operation.

President Trump's proposal to have the U.S. take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has sparked significant controversy. While the U.S. offers expertise and investment, Ukraine maintains that ownership of its nuclear assets is a matter of national sovereignty, even as it has resumed electricity exports to bolster its economy. The situation underscores the complex interplay between security, sovereignty, and international cooperation in conflict zones.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. Energy Transition traces the shift from coal and oil to natural gas, nuclear power, and renewables like wind and solar, driven by efficiency, grid modernization, climate goals, and economic innovation.

Key Points

The U.S. Energy Transition is the shift from fossil fuels to cleaner power, driven by tech, policy, and markets.

✅ Shift from coal and oil to gas, nuclear, wind, and solar

✅ Enabled by grid modernization, storage, and efficiency

✅ Aims to cut emissions while ensuring reliability and affordability

The evolution of energy use in the United States is a dynamic narrative that reflects technological advancements, economic shifts, environmental awareness, and societal changes over time. From the nation's early reliance on wood and coal to the modern era dominated by oil, natural gas, and renewable sources, the story of energy consumption in the U.S. is a testament to innovation and adaptation.

Early Energy Sources: Wood and Coal

In the early days of U.S. history, energy needs were primarily met through renewable resources such as wood for heating and cooking. As industrialization took hold in the 19th century, coal emerged as a dominant energy source, fueling steam engines and powering factories, railways, and urban growth. The widespread availability of coal spurred economic development and shaped the nation's infrastructure.

The Rise of Petroleum and Natural Gas

The discovery and commercialization of petroleum in the late 19th century transformed the energy landscape once again. Oil quickly became a cornerstone of the U.S. economy, powering transportation, industry, and residential heating, and informing debates about U.S. energy security in policy circles. Concurrently, natural gas emerged as a significant energy source, particularly for heating and electricity generation, as pipelines expanded across the country.

Electricity Revolution

The 20th century witnessed a revolution in electricity generation and consumption, and understanding where electricity comes from helps contextualize how systems evolved. The development of hydroelectric power, spurred by projects like the Hoover Dam and Tennessee Valley Authority, provided clean and renewable energy to millions of Americans. The widespread electrification of rural areas and the proliferation of appliances in homes and businesses transformed daily life and spurred economic growth.

Nuclear Power and Energy Diversification

In the mid-20th century, nuclear power emerged as a promising alternative to fossil fuels, promising abundant energy with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. Despite concerns about safety and waste disposal, nuclear power plants became a significant part of the U.S. energy mix, providing a stable base load of electricity, even as the aging U.S. power grid complicates integration of variable renewables.

Renewable Energy Revolution

In recent decades, the U.S. has seen a growing emphasis on renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal power, yet market shocks and high fuel prices alone have not guaranteed a rapid green revolution, prompting broader policy and investment responses. Advances in technology, declining costs, and environmental concerns have driven investments in clean energy infrastructure and policies promoting renewable energy adoption. States like California and Texas lead the nation in wind and solar energy production, demonstrating the feasibility and benefits of transitioning to sustainable energy sources.

Energy Efficiency and Conservation

Alongside shifts in energy sources, improvements in energy efficiency and conservation have played a crucial role in reducing per capita energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Energy-efficient appliances, building codes, and transportation innovations have helped mitigate the environmental impact of energy use while reducing costs for consumers and businesses, and weather and economic factors also influence demand; for example, U.S. power demand fell in 2023 on milder weather, underscoring the interplay between efficiency and usage.

Challenges and Opportunities

Looking ahead, the U.S. faces both challenges and opportunities in its energy future, as recent energy crisis effects ripple across electricity, gas, and EVs alike. Addressing climate change requires further investments in renewable energy, grid modernization, and energy storage technologies. Balancing energy security, affordability, and environmental sustainability remains a complex task that requires collaboration between government, industry, and society.

Conclusion

The evolution of energy use throughout U.S. history reflects a continuous quest for innovation, economic growth, and environmental stewardship. From wood and coal to nuclear power and renewables, each era has brought new challenges and opportunities in meeting the nation's energy needs. As the U.S. transitions towards a cleaner and more sustainable energy future, leveraging technological advancements and embracing policy solutions, amid debates over U.S. energy dominance, will be essential in shaping the next chapter of America's energy story.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News