Met-Ed spends millions to expand infrastructure

Spring Storm Grid Risks highlight tornado outbreaks, flooding, power outages, and transmission disruptions, with NOAA flood outlooks, coal and barge delays, vulnerable nuclear sites, and distribution line damage demanding resilience, reliability, and emergency preparedness.

Key Points

Spring Storm Grid Risks show how tornadoes and floods disrupt power systems, fuel transport, and plants guide resilience.

✅ Tornado outbreaks and derechos damage distribution and transmission

✅ Flooding drives outages via treefall, substation and plant inundation

✅ Fuel logistics disrupted: rail coal, river barges, road access

The storm and tornado outbreak that recently barreled through the US Midwest, South and Mid-Atlantic was a devastating reminder of how much danger spring can deliver, despite it being the “milder” season compared to summer and winter.  

Danger season is approaching, and the country is starting to see the impacts. 

The event killed at least 32 people across seven states. The National Weather Service is still tallying up the number of confirmed tornadoes, which has already passed 100. Communities coping with tragedy are assessing the damage, which so far includes at least 72 destroyed homes in one Tennessee county alone, and dozens more homes elsewhere. 

On Saturday, April 1–the day after the storm struck–there were 1.1 million US utility customers without power, even as EIA reported a January power generation surge earlier in the year. On Monday morning, April 3, there were still more than 80,000 customers in the dark, according to PowerOutage.us. The storm system brought disruptions to both distribution grids–those networks of local power lines you generally see running overhead to buildings–as well as the larger transmission grid in the Midwest, which is far less common than distribution-level issues. 

While we don’t yet have a lot of granular details about this latest storm’s grid impacts, recent shifts in demand like New York City's pandemic power patterns show how operating conditions evolve, and it’s worth going through what else the country might be in for this spring, as well as in future springs. Moreover, there are steps policymakers can take to prepare for these spring weather phenomena and bolster the reliability and resilience of the US power system. 

Heightened flood risk 
The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said in a recent outlook that about 44 percent of the United States is at risk of floods this spring, equating to about 146 million people. This includes most of the eastern half of the country, the federal agency said. 

The agency also sees “major” flood risk potential in some parts of the Upper Mississippi River Basin, and relatively higher risk in the Sierra Nevada region, due in part to a historic snowpack in California.  

Multiple components of the power system can be affected by spring floods. 

Power lines – Floods can saturate soil and make trees more likely to uproot and fall onto power lines. This has been contributing to power outages during California’s recent heavy storms–called atmospheric rivers–that started over the winter. In other regions, soil moisture has even been used as a predictor of where power outages will occur due to hurricanes, so that utility companies are better prepared to send line repair crews to the right areas. Hurricanes are primarily a summer and fall phenomenon, and summer also brings grid stress from air conditioning demand in many states, so for now, during spring, they are less of a concern.  

Fuel transport – Spring floods can hinder the transportation of fuels like coal. While it is a heavily polluting fossil fuel that is set to continue declining as a fuel source for US electricity generation, with the EIA summer outlook for wind and solar pointing to further shifts, coal still accounted for roughly 20 percent of the country’s generation in 2022.   

About 70 percent of US coal is transported at least part of the way by trains. The rail infrastructure to transport coal from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming–the country’s primary coal source–was proven to be vulnerable to extreme floods in the spring of 2011, and even more extreme floods in the spring of 2019. The 2019 floods’ disruptions of coal shipments to power plants via rail persisted for months and into the summertime, also affecting river shipments of coal by barge. In June 2019, hundreds of barges were stalled in the Mississippi River, through which millions of tons of the fossil fuel are normally transported. 

Power plants – Power plants themselves can also be at risk of flooding, since most of them are sited near a source of water that is used to create steam to spin the plants’ turbines, and conversely, low water levels can constrain hydropower as seen in Western Canada hydropower drought during recent reservoir shortfalls. Most US fossil fuel generating capacity from sources like methane gas, which recently set natural gas power records across the grid, and coal utilizes steam to generate electricity. 

However, much of the attention paid to the flood risk of power plant sites has centered on nuclear plants, a key source of low-carbon electricity discussed in IAEA low-carbon electricity lessons that also require a water source for the creation of steam, as well as for keeping the plant cool in an emergency. To name a notable flood example here in the United States–both visually and substantively–in 2011, the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant in Nebraska was completely surrounded by water due to late-spring flooding along the Missouri River. This sparked a lot of concerns because it was just a few months after the March 2011 meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan. The public was thankfully not harmed by the Nebraska incident, but this was unfortunately not an isolated incident in terms of flood risks posed to the US nuclear power fleet. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hinkley Point C dome lift marks a nuclear reactor milestone in Somerset, as EDF used Big Carl crane to place a 245-tonne steel roof, enabling 2027 startup amid costs, delays, and precision indoor welding.

Key Points

A 245-tonne dome lifted onto Hinkley Point C's first reactor, finishing the roof and enabling fit-out for a 2027 startup.

✅ 245-tonne steel dome lifted by Big Carl onto 44m-high reactor

✅ Indoor welding avoided weather defects seen at Flamanville

✅ Cost now £33bn; first power targeted by end of 2027

Engineers have lifted a steel roof onto a building which will house the first of two nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset.

Hundreds of people helped with the delicate operation to get the 245-tonne steel dome into position.

It means the first reactor can be installed next year, ready to be switched on in June 2027.

Engineers at EDF said the "challenging job" was completed in just over an hour.

They first broke the ground on the new nuclear station in March 2017. Now, some 10,000 people work on what is Europe's largest building site.

Yet many analysts note that Europe is losing nuclear power even as demand for reliable energy grows.

They have faced delays from Covid restrictions and other recent setbacks, and the budget has doubled to £33bn, so getting the roof on the first of the two reactor buildings is a big deal.

EDF's nuclear island director Simon Parsons said it was a "fantastic night".

"Lifting the dome into place is a celebration of all the work done by a fantastic team. The smiles on people's faces this morning were something else.

"Now we can get on with the fitting of equipment, pipes and cables, including the first reactor which is on site and ready to be installed next year."

Nuclear minister Andrew Bowie hailed the "major milestone" in the building project, citing its role in the UK's green industrial revolution ambitions.

He said: "This is a key part of the UK Government's plans to revitalise nuclear."

But many still question whether Hinkley Point C will be worth all the money, especially after Hitachi's project freeze in Britain, with Roy Pumfrey of the Stop Hinkley campaign describing the project as "shockingly bad value".

Why lift the roof on?

The steel dome is bigger than the one on St Paul's Cathedral in London.

To lift it onto the 44-metre-high reactor building, they needed the world's largest land-based crane, dubbed Big Carl by engineers.

So why not just build the roof on top of the building?

The answer lies in a remote corner of Normandy in France, near a village called Flamanville.

EDF has been building a nuclear reactor there since 2007, ten years before they started in west Somerset.

The project is now a decade behind schedule and has still not been approved by French regulators.

Why? Because of cracks found in the precision welding on the roof of the reactor building.

In nuclear-powered France, they built the roof in situ, out in the open. 

Engineers have decided welding outside, exposed to wind and rain, compromised the high standards needed for a nuclear reactor.

So in Somerset they built a temporary workshop, which looks like a fair sized building itself. All the welding has been done inside, and then the completed roof was lifted into place.

Is it on time or on budget?

No, neither. When Hinkley C was first approved a decade ago, EDF said it would cost £14bn.

Four years later, in 2017, they finally started construction. By now the cost had risen to £19.5bn, and EDF said the plant would be finished by the end of 2025.

Today, the cost has risen to £33bn, and it is now hoped Hinkley C will produce electricity by the end of 2027.

"Nobody believes it will be done by 2027," said campaigner Roy Pumfrey.

"The costs keep rising, and the price of Hinkley's electricity will only get dearer," they added.

On the other hand, the increase in costs is not a problem for British energy bill payers, or the UK government.

EDF agreed to pay the full cost of construction, including any increases.

When I met Grant Shapps, then the UK Energy Secretary, at the site in April, he shrugged off the cost increases.

He said: "I think we should all be rather pleased it is not the British tax payer - it is France and EDF who are paying."

In return, the UK government agreed a set rate for Hinkley's power, called the Strike Price, back in 2013. The idea was this would guarantee the income from Hinkley Point for 35 years, allowing investors to get their money back.

Will it be worth the money?

Back in 2013, the Strike Price was set at £92.50 for each megawatt hour of power. At the time, the wholesale price of electricity was around £50/MWh, so Hinkley C looked expensive.

But since then, global shocks like the war in Ukraine have increased the cost of power substantially, and advocates argue next-gen nuclear could deliver smaller, cheaper, safer designs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Maine Hydropower Transmission Line revived by high court after referendum challenge, advancing NECEC, Hydro-Quebec supply, Central Maine Power partnership, clean energy integration, grid reliability, and lower rates across New England pending land-lease ruling.

Key Points

A court-revived NECEC line delivering 1,200 MW of Hydro-Quebec hydropower via CMP to strengthen the New England grid.

✅ Maine high court deems retroactive referendum unconstitutional

✅ Pending state land lease case may affect final route

✅ Project could lower rates and cut emissions in New England

Maine's highest court on Tuesday breathed new life into a $1-billion US transmission line that aims to serve as conduit for Canadian hydropower, after construction starts drew scrutiny, ruling that a statewide vote rebuking the project was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the retroactive nature of the referendum last year violated the project developer's constitutional rights, sending it back to a lower court for further proceedings.

The court did not rule in a separate case that focuses on a lease for a 1.6-kilometre portion of the proposed power line that crosses state land.

Central Maine Power's parent company and Hydro-Québec teamed up on the project that would supply up to 1,200 megawatts of Canadian hydropower, amid the ongoing Maine-Quebec corridor debate in the region. That's enough electricity for one million homes.

Most of the proposed 233-kilometre power transmission line would be built along existing corridors, but a new 85-kilometre section was needed to reach the Canadian border, echoing debates around the Northern Pass clash in New Hampshire.

Workers were already clearing trees and setting poles when the governor asked for work to be suspended after the referendum in November 2021, mirroring New Hampshire's earlier rejection of a Quebec-Massachusetts proposal that rerouted regional plans. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection later suspended its permit, but that could be reversed depending on the outcome of legal proceedings.

The high court was asked to weigh in on two separate lawsuits. Developers sought to declare the referendum unconstitutional while another lawsuit focused on a lease allowing transmission lines to cross a short segment of state-owned land.

Supporters say bold projects such as this one, funded by ratepayers in Massachusetts, are necessary to battle climate change and introduce additional electricity into a region that's heavily reliant on natural gas, which can cause spikes in energy costs, as seen with Nova Scotia rate increases recently across the Atlantic region.

Critics say the project's environmental benefits are overstated — and that it would harm the woodlands in western Maine.

It was the second time the Supreme Judicial Court was asked to weigh in on a referendum aimed at killing the project. The first referendum proposal never made it onto the ballot after the court raised constitutional concerns.

Although the project is funded by Massachusetts ratepayers, the introduction of so much electricity to the grid would serve to stabilize or reduce electricity rates for all consumers, proponents contend, even as Manitoba Hydro rate hikes face opposition elsewhere.

The referendum on the project was the costliest in Maine history, topping $90 million US and underscoring deep divisions.

The high-stakes campaign put environmental and conservation groups at odds, and pitted utilities backing the project, amid the Hydro One-Avista backlash, against operators of fossil fuel-powered plants that stand to lose money.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Vogtle Unit 3 Initial Criticality marks the startup of a new U.S. nuclear reactor, initiating fission to produce heat, steam, and electricity, supporting clean energy goals, grid reliability, and carbon-free baseload power.

Key Points

Vogtle Unit 3 Initial Criticality is the first fission startup, launching power generation at a new U.S. reactor.

✅ First new U.S. reactor to reach criticality since 2016

✅ Generates carbon-free baseload power for the grid

✅ Faced cost overruns and delays during construction

For the first time in almost seven years, a new nuclear reactor has started up in the United States.

On Monday, Georgia Power announced that the Vogtle nuclear reactor Unit 3 has started a nuclear reaction inside the reactor as part of the first new reactors in decades now taking shape at the plant.

Technically, this is called “initial criticality.” It’s when the nuclear fission process starts splitting atoms and generating heat, Georgia Power said in a written announcement.

The heat generated in the nuclear reactor causes water to boil. The resulting steam spins a turbine that’s connected to a generator that creates electricity.

Vogtle’s Unit 3 reactor will be fully in service in May or June, Georgia Power said.

The last time a nuclear reactor reached the same milestone was almost seven years ago in May 2016 when the Tennessee Valley Authority started splitting atoms at the Watts Bar Unit 2 reactor in Tennessee, Scott Burnell, a spokesperson for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told CNBC.

“This is a truly exciting time as we prepare to bring online a new nuclear unit that will serve our state with clean and emission-free energy for the next 60 to 80 years,” Chris Womack, CEO of Georgia Power, said in a written statement. 

Including the newly turned-on Vogtle Unit 3 reactor, there are currently 93 nuclear reactors operating in the United States and, collectively, they generate 20% of the electricity in the country, although a South Carolina plant leak recently showed how outages can sideline a unit for weeks.

Nuclear reactors, which help combat global warming and support net-zero emissions goals, generate about half of the clean, carbon-free electricity generated in the U.S.

Most of the nuclear power reactors in the United States were constructed between 1970 and 1990, but construction slowed significantly after the accident at Three Mile Island near Middletown, Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979, even as interest in next-gen nuclear power has grown in recent years. From 1979 through 1988, 67 nuclear reactor construction projects were canceled, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

However, because nuclear energy is generated without releasing carbon dioxide emissions, which cause global warming, the increased sense of urgency in responding to climate change has given nuclear energy a chance at a renaissance as atomic energy heats up again globally.

The cost associated with building nuclear reactors is a major barrier to a potential resurgence in nuclear energy, however, even as nuclear generation costs have fallen to a ten-year low. And the new builds at Vogtle have become an epitome of that charge: The construction of the two Vogtle reactors has been plagued by cost overruns and delays.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Electricity Market faces energy-only vs capacity debate as transmission, distribution, and administration fees surge; rural rates rise amid a regulated duopoly of investor-owned utilities, prompting calls for competition, innovation, and lower bills.

Key Points

Alberta's electricity market is an energy-only system with rising delivery charges and limited rural competition.

✅ Energy-only design; capacity market scrapped

✅ Delivery charges outpace energy on monthly bills

✅ Rural duopoly limits competition and raises rates

Last week, Alberta’s new Energy Minister Sonya Savage announced the government, through its new electricity rules, would be scrapping plans to shift Alberta’s electricity to a capacity market and would instead be “restoring certainty in the electricity system.”

The proposed transition from energy only to a capacity market is a contentious subject as a market reshuffle unfolds across the province that many Albertans probably don’t know much about. Our electricity market is not a particularly glamorous subject. It’s complicated and confusing and what matters most to ordinary Albertans is how it affects their monthly bills.

What they may not realize is that the cost of their actual electricity used is often just a small fraction of their bill amid rising electricity prices across the province. The majority on an average electricity bill is actually the cost of delivering that electricity from the generator to your house. Charges for transmission, distribution and franchise and administration fees are quickly pushing many Alberta households to the limit with soaring bills.

According to data from Alberta’s Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA), and alongside policy changes, in 2004 the average monthly transmission costs for residential regulated-rate customers was below $2. In 2018 that cost was averaging nearly $27 a month. The increase is equally dramatic in distribution rates which have more than doubled across the province and range wildly, averaging from as low as $10 a month in 2004 to over $80 a month for some residential regulated-rate customers in 2018.

Where you live determines who delivers your electricity. In Alberta’s biggest cities and a handful of others the distribution systems are municipally owned and operated. Outside those select municipalities most of Alberta’s electricity is delivered by two private companies which operate as a regulated duopoly. In fact, two investor-owned utilities deliver power to over 95 per cent of rural Alberta and they continue to increase their share by purchasing the few rural electricity co-ops that remained their only competition in the market. The cost of buying out their competition is then passed on to the customers, driving rates even higher.

As the CEO of Alberta’s largest remaining electricity co-op, I know very well that as the price of materials, equipment and skilled labour increase, the cost of operating follows. If it costs more to build and maintain an electricity distribution system there will inevitably be a cost increase passed on to the consumer. The question Albertans should be asking is how much is too much and where is all that money going with these private- investor-owned utilities, as the sector faces profound change under provincial leadership?

The reforms to Alberta’s electricity system brought in by Premier Klein in the late 1900s and early 2000s contributed to a surge in investment in the sector and led to an explosion of competition in both electricity generation and retail. 

More players entered the field which put downward pressure on electricity rates, encouraged innovation and gave consumers a competitive choice, even as a Calgary electricity retailer urged the government to scrap the overhaul. But the legislation and regulations that govern rural electricity distribution in Alberta continue to facilitate and even encourage the concentration of ownership among two players which is certainly not in the interests of rural Albertans.

It is also not in the spirit of the United Conservative Party platform commitment to a “market-based” system. A market-based system suggests more competition. Instead, what we have is something approaching a monopoly for many Albertans. The UCP promised a review of the transition to a capacity market that would determine which market would be best for Alberta, and through proposed electricity market changes has decided that we will remain an energy-only market.
Consumers in rural Alberta need electricity to produce the goods that power our biggest industries. Instead of regulating and approving continued rate increases from private multinational corporations, we need to drive competition and innovation that can push rates down and encourage growth and investment in rural-based industries and communities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Manitoba Hydro 3.5 Percent Rate Increase proposes a smaller electricity rate hike under Public Utilities Board oversight to bolster financial reserves, address debt and Bipole III costs, amid shifting export sales and water flow conditions.

Key Points

It is Manitoba Hydro's proposed 3.5% electricity rate hike for 2019-20 to shore up finances under PUB oversight.

✅ PUB review sought without lengthy hearing

✅ Revenue boost forecast at 59 million dollars

✅ Natural gas rates flat; class shifts adjust bills

Manitoba Hydro is scaling back its rate hike request for next year, instead of the annual 7.9 per cent hikes the Crown corporation previously said it would need until 2023-24 to address debt. 

Hydro is asking the Public Utilities Board for a 3.5 per cent rate increase next year, which would take effect on April 1.

In last week's application, Hydro said its new board is reviewing the corporation's financial picture. Once that is complete, the utility expects to submit a new multi-year rate plan in late 2019 that addresses the organization's long-term future.

"It's too speculative at this point to discuss any possible future rate increases," spokesperson Bruce Owen said in an email.

The proposed increase next year is similar to other jurisdictions and nearly in line with the Public Utilities Board's decision to allow an average 3.6 per cent jump in electricity rates in 2018-19, which began this summer.

"The requested 3.5 per cent rate increase … generates a modest level of net income under average water flow conditions that will assist in gradually building the revenue base and reduce the risk of the corporation incurring a loss" in 2019-20, the rate application said.

If approved, consumers would face their second rate increase from Hydro in under a year.

Crown Services Minister Colleen Mayer said she's sympathetic to customers bracing for another rate increase amid NL rate hike concerns that far exceeds the rate of inflation.

"I hear that, very clearly," she said. "The NDP left us with an insurmountable problem — we're trying to fix that."

Hydro goes to court over special rate class for First Nations residents in Manitoba

National Energy Board OK's Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project

Next year's rate increase is projected to bring in $59 million of revenue, boosting the Crown corporation's financial reserves by $31 million.

Without it, the utility would deal with a net loss, it said.

This time, Hydro officials are asking PUB to forgo a rate hearing, suggesting neither itself nor the board has the resources for a lengthy six- to nine-month process to review an application where not much has changed financially and would generate a "minimum level of net income," Hydro said in a letter to the board.

The short-term rate relief, the letter recommends, should be "awarded in a timely and cost-effective manner, recognizing that the corporation's long-term financial forecasts will be finalized and available for review" in late 2019.

Hydro's net income next year will be lower than projected, the rate application said, due to a reduction in export sales and increases in depreciation and financing costs from Bipole III.

"Even though they had a total implosion of their previous board, on this very issue, they haven't learned lessons and they continue to be cheerleaders for these rapid rate increases," Kinew said, referring to the exodus of every board member but one earlier this year.

Manitoba Hydro's burgeoning debt surpasses $19 billion

On natural gas, Manitoba Hydro is asking PUB for no rate increase for the next two years.

There will, however, be some changes in rates in different customer classes, Owen said, resulting in modest rate reductions for mainly residential customers and increases for customers who use a lot of natural gas.

The corporation also wants to stop collecting fees to support the furnace replacement program. The initiative will continue with existing fees.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News