Exelon now selling Green-e Energy Certified RECs

BPA Privatization would sell the Bonneville Power Administration's transmission lines, raising FERC-regulated grid rates for ratepayers, impacting hydropower and the California-Oregon Intertie under the Trump 2018 budget proposal in the Pacific Northwest region.

Key Points

Selling Bonneville's transmission grid to private owners, raising rates and returns, shifting costs to ratepayers.

✅ Trump 2018 budget targets BPA transmission assets for sale.

✅ Higher capital costs, taxes, and profit would raise transmission rates.

✅ California-Oregon Intertie and hydropower flows face price impacts.

President Trump's 2018 budget proposal is so chock-full of noxious elements — replacing food stamps with "food boxes," drastically cutting Medicaid and Medicare, for a start — that it's unsurprising that one of its most misguided pieces has slipped under the radar.

That's the proposal to privatize the government-owned Bonneville Power Administration, which owns about three-quarters of the high-voltage electric transmission lines in a region that includes California, Washington state and Oregon, serving more than 13.5 million customers. By one authoritative estimate, any such sale would drive up the cost of transmission by 26%-44%.

The $5.2-billon price cited by the Trump administration, moreover, is nearly 20% below the actual value of the Bonneville grid — meaning that a private buyer would pocket an immediate windfall of $1.2 billion, at the expense of federal taxpayers and Bonneville customers.

Trump's plan for Portland, Ore.-based Bonneville is part of a larger proposal to sell off other government-owned electricity bodies, including the Colorado-based Western Area Power Administration and the Oklahoma-based Southwestern Power Administration. But Bonneville is by far the largest of the three, accounting for nearly 90% of the total $5.8 billion the budget anticipates collecting from the sales. The proposal is also part of the administration's

Both plans are said to be politically dead-on-arrival in Washington. But they offer a window into the thinking in the Trump White House.

"The word 'muddle' comes to mind," says Robert McCullough, a respected Portland energy consultant, referring to the justification for the privatization sale included in the Trump budget.

The White House suggests that selling the Bonneville grid would result in lower costs. But that narrative, McCullough wrote in a blistering assessment of the proposal, "displays a severe lack of understanding about the process of setting transmission rates."

McCullough's assessment is an update of a similar analysis he performed when the privatization scheme was first raised by the Trump administration last year. In that analysis issued in June, McCullough said the proposal "raises the question of why these valuable assets would be sold at a discount — and who would get the benefit of the discounted price."

The implications of a sale could be dire for Californians. Bonneville is the majority owner of the California-Oregon Intertie, an electrical transmission system that carries power, including Columbia River-generated hydropower and other clean-energy generation in British Columbia that supports the regional exchange, south to California in the summer and excess California generation to the Pacific Northwest in the winter.

But the idea has drawn fire throughout the region. When it was first broached last year, the Public Power Council, an association of utilities in the Northwest, assailed it as an apparent "transfer of value from the people of the Northwest to the U.S. Treasury," drawing parallels to Manitoba Hydro governance issues elsewhere.

The region's political leaders had especially harsh words for the idea this time around. "Oregonians raised hell last year when Trump tried to raise power bills for Pacific Northwesterners by selling off Bonneville Power, and yet his administration is back at it again," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said after the idea reappeared. "Our investment shouldn't be put up for sale to free up money for runaway military spending or tax cuts for billionaires." Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) promised in a statement to work to "stop this bad idea in its tracks."

The notion of privatizing Bonneville predates the Trump administration; it was raised by Bill Clinton and again by George W. Bush, who thought the public would gain if the administration could sell its power at market rates. Both initiatives failed.

The same free-enterprise ideology underlies the Trump proposal. Privatizing the transmission lines "encourages a more efficient allocation of economic resources and mitigates unnecessary risk to taxpayers," the budget asserts. "Ownership of transmission assets is best carried out by the private sector where there are appropriate market and regulatory incentives."

But that's based on a misunderstanding of how transmission rates are set, McCullough says. Transmission is essentially a monopoly enterprise, with rates overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission based on the grid's costs, and with federal scrutiny of public utilities such as the TVA underscoring that oversight. There's very little in the way of market "incentives" involved in transmission, since no one has come forward to build a competing grid.

Those include the owners' cost of capital — which would be much higher for a private owner than a government agency, McCullough observes, as Hydro One investor uncertainty demonstrates in practice. A private owner, unlike the government-owned Bonneville, also would owe federal income taxes, which would be passed on to consumers.

Then there's the profit motive. Bonneville "currently sells and delivers its power at cost," McCullough wrote last year. "Under a private regime, an investor-owned utility would likely charge a higher rate of return, a pattern seen when UK network profits drew regulatory rebukes."

None of these considerations appears to have been factored into the White House budget proposal. "Either there's an unsophisticated person at the Office of Management and Budget thinking up these numbers himself," McCullough told me, "or there would seem to be ongoing negotiations with an unidentified third party." No such buyer has emerged in the past, however.

What's left is a blind faith in the magic of the market, compounded by ignorance about how the transmission market operates. Put it together, and there's reason to wonder if Trump is even serious about this plan.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

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

Vancouver Formula E 2022 delivers an all-electric, net-zero motorsport event in False Creek, featuring sustainability initiatives, clean mobility showcases, concerts, and tourism boosts, with major economic impact, jobs, and a climate action conference.

Key Points

A net-zero, all-electric race in False Creek, uniting EV motorsport with sustainability, concerts, and local jobs.

✅ Net-zero, all-electric FIA championship round in Canada

✅ False Creek street circuit with concerts and green mobility expo

✅ Projected $80M impact and thousands of local jobs

The City of Vancouver is hosting an ABB FIA Formula E World Championship race next year, organizers have announced, aligning with the city's EV-ready policy to accelerate adoption.

The all-electric race is being held in the city's False Creek neighbourhood over the 2022 July long weekend as green energy investments accelerate nationwide, according to promoter OSS Group Inc.

Earlier this year, Vancouver city council voted unanimously in support of a multi-day Formula E event that would include a conference on climate change and sustainability amid predicted EV-demand bottlenecks in B.C.

"Formula E is a win on so many levels, from being a net-zero event that supports sustainable transportation to being a huge boost for our hard-hit tourism sector, our residents, who can access rebates for home and workplace charging, and our local economy," Coun. Sarah Kirby-Yung said in a news release Thursday.

As the region advances sustainable mobility, B.C.'s EV charging expansion continues to lead the country.

The promoter said the Formula E race will bring $80 million in economic value and thousands of jobs to the city, with infrastructure like new EV chargers at YVR also underway, but did not provide any details on how it came to those estimates.

More details on the events surrounding the race, including planned concerts and other EV showcases like Everything Electric, are expected to be announced in the fall.

The last time a Formula E World Championship event came to Canada was the Montreal ePrix in 2017. Montreal Mayor Valerie Plante later cancelled planned Formula E events for 2018 and 2019, citing cost overruns and sponsorship troubles.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

UK Coal Phase-Out marks record-low coal generation as the UK grid shifts to renewable power, wind farms, and a net zero trajectory, slashing carbon emissions and supporting cleaner EV charging across the electricity system.

Key Points

UK Coal Phase-Out ends coal-fired electricity nationwide, powered by renewables and net zero policy to cut grid carbon.

✅ Coal's Q2 share fell to 0.7%, a record low

✅ Renewables up 12% with Beatrice wind farm

✅ EV charging grows cleaner as grid decarbonizes

The share of coal in the UK’s electricity system has fallen to record lows in recent months, alongside a coal-free power record, according to government data.

The figures show electricity generated by the UK’s most polluting power plants made up an average of 0.7% of the total in the second quarter of this year, a shift underway since wind first outpaced coal in 2016 across the UK. The amount of coal used to power the electricity grid fell by almost two-thirds compared with the same months last year.

A government spokesperson said coal-generated energy “will soon be a distant memory” as the UK moves towards becoming a net zero emissions economy, despite signs that low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 in some analyses.

“This new record low is a result of our world-leading low-carbon energy industry, which provided more than half of our energy last year and continues to go from strength to strength as we aim to end our contribution to climate change entirely by 2050,” the spokesperson said.

The UK electricity market is on track to end coal power after 142 years by the government’s target date of 2025.

This year three major energy companies have announced plans to close coal-fired power plants in the UK, which would leave only four remaining after the coming winter, ahead of the last coal power station going offline nationwide.

RWE said this month it would close the Aberthaw B power station in south Wales, its last UK coal plant, after the winter. SSE will close the Fiddler’s Ferry plant near Warrington, Cheshire, in March 2020, and EDF Energy will shutter the Cottam coal plant in September.

So far this year the UK has gone more than 3,000 hours without using coal for power, including a full week without coal earlier in the year – nearly five times more than the whole of 2017.

Meanwhile, the government’s data shows that renewable energy climbed by 12% from the second quarter of last year, boosted by the startup of the Beatrice windfarm in the Moray Firth in Scotland, and the UK leading the G20 in wind power share in recent assessments.

The cleaner power system could accelerate carbon savings from the UK’s roads, too, as more drivers opt for electric vehicles. A study by Imperial College London for the energy company Drax found that the UK’s increasingly low-carbon energy system meant electric cars were a greener option even when taking into account the carbon emissions produced by making car batteries.

Dr Iain Staffell, of Imperial College London, said: “An electric vehicle in the UK simply cannot be more polluting than its petrol or diesel equivalent – even when taking into account the upfront carbon cost of manufacturing their batteries. Any EV bought today could be emitting just a tenth of what a petrol car would in as little as five years’ time, as the electricity it uses to charge comes from an increasingly low-carbon mix.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Irving Oil hydrogen electrolyzer expands green hydrogen capacity at the Saint John refinery with Plug Power technology, cutting carbon emissions, enabling clean fuel for buses, and supporting Atlantic Canada decarbonization and renewable grid integration.

Key Points

A 5 MW Plug Power unit at Irving's Saint John refinery producing low-carbon hydrogen via electrolysis.

✅ Produces 2 tonnes/day, enough to fuel about 60 hydrogen buses

✅ Uses grid power; targets cleaner supply via renewables and nuclear

✅ First Canadian refinery investing in electrolyzer technology

Irving Oil is expanding hydrogen capacity at its Saint John, N.B., refinery in a bid to lower carbon emissions and offer clean energy to customers.

The family-owned company said Tuesday it has a deal with New York-based Plug Power Inc. to buy a five-megawatt hydrogen electrolyzer that will produce two tonnes of hydrogen a day — equivalent to fuelling 60 buses with hydrogen — using electricity from the local grid and drawing on examples such as reduced electricity rates proposed in Ontario to grow the hydrogen economy.

Hydrogen is an important part of the refining process as it's used to lower the sulphur content of petroleum products like diesel fuel, but most refineries produce hydrogen using natural gas, which creates carbon dioxide emissions and raises questions explored in hydrogen's future for power companies in the energy sector.

"Investing in a hydrogen electrolyzer allows us to produce hydrogen in a very different way," Irving director of energy transition Andy Carson said in an interview.

"Instead of using natural gas, we're actually using water molecules and electricity through the electrolysis process to produce ... a clean hydrogen."

Irving plans to continue to work with others in the province to decarbonize the grid amid pressures like Ontario's push into energy storage as electricity supply tightens and ensure the electricity being used to power its hydrogen electrolyzer is as clean as possible, he said.

N.B. Power's electrical system includes 14 generating stations powered by hydro, coal, oil, wind, nuclear and diesel. The utility has committed to increasing its renewable energy sources and exploring innovations such as EV-to-grid integration piloted in Nova Scotia.

Irving said it will be the first oil refinery in Canada to invest in electrolyzer technology, as Ontario's Hydrogen Innovation Fund supports broader deployment nationwide.

The company said its goal is to offer hydrogen fuelling infrastructure in Atlantic Canada, complementing N.L.'s fast-charging network for EV drivers in the region.

"This kind of investment allows us to not just move to a cleaner form of hydrogen in the refinery. It also allows us to store and make hydrogen available to the marketplace," Carson said.

Federal watchdog warns Canada's 2030 emissions target may not be achievable
The hydrogen technology will help Irving "unlock pent up demand for hydrogen as an energy transition fuel for logistics organizations," he said.

Alberta also aims to expand its hydrogen production over the coming years, alongside British Columbia's $900 million hydrogen project moving ahead on the West Coast. 

Those plans lean on the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology that aims to trap the emissions created when producing hydrogen from natural gas.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News