Court blocks plan to curb mountaintop mining

Enbridge Alberta CCS Project targets carbon capture and storage in Alberta, capturing emissions from industrial emitters to advance net-zero goals, leveraging carbon pricing, regulatory support, and a hub model despite a key partner's exit.

Key Points

A proposed Alberta carbon capture hub by Enbridge to store industrial emissions and support net-zero targets.

✅ Seeks emitters across power, oil and gas, and heavy industry

✅ Backed by carbon pricing, regulation, and net-zero mandates

✅ Faces high capex, storage risk, and anchor-tenant uncertainty

Enbridge Inc., a Canadian energy giant, is digging its heels in on its proposed carbon capture and storage (CCS) project in Alberta. This comes despite the recent withdrawal of Capital Power, a major potential emitter that was expected to utilize the CCS technology. Enbridge maintains the project remains viable, but questions linger about its future viability without a cornerstone anchor.

The CCS project, envisioned as a major carbon capture hub in Alberta, aimed to capture emissions from industrial facilities and permanently store them underground. This technology has the potential to play a significant role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change, alongside grid solutions like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap that can complement decarbonization efforts.

Capital Power's decision to shelve its $2.4 billion Genesee Generating Station project, which was designed to integrate with the CCS hub, threw a wrench into Enbridge's plans. The Genesee project was expected to be a key source of emissions for capture and storage, and its status is being weighed as Ottawa advances the federal coal plan to phase out unabated coal.

Enbridge, however, remains optimistic. The company cites ongoing discussions with other potential emitters interested in utilizing the CCS technology, amid new funding signals such as the U.S. DOE's $110M for CCUS that highlight momentum. They believe the project holds significant value despite Capital Power's departure.

"We are confident in the long-term viability of the project and continue to actively engage with potential customers," said Enbridge spokesperson Rachel Giroux. "Carbon capture and storage is a critical technology for achieving net-zero emissions, and we believe there is a strong business case for our CCS project."

Enbridge's confidence hinges on several factors. Firstly, they believe there is a growing appetite for CCS technology amongst industrial facilities facing increasing pressure to reduce their carbon footprint. Regulations and carbon pricing mechanisms, including new U.S. EPA power plant rules that test CCS readiness, could further incentivize companies to adopt CCS solutions.

Secondly, Enbridge highlights the potential for capturing emissions from not just power plants but also from other industrial sectors like oil and gas production and clean hydrogen projects in Canada, where reforming processes can generate CO2. This broader application could significantly increase the captured carbon volume and strengthen the project's economic viability.

However, skepticism remains. Critics point to the high upfront costs associated with CCS development and the nascent stage of the technology. They argue that without a guaranteed stream of captured emissions, the project might not be financially sound. Additionally, the long-term safety and effectiveness of large-scale carbon storage solutions remain under scrutiny.

The success of Enbridge's CCS project hinges on attracting new emitters. Replacing Capital Power's contribution will be a significant challenge. Enbridge will need to demonstrate the project's economic viability and navigate the complex regulatory landscape surrounding CCS technology.

The Alberta government's position on CCS is crucial. While the government has expressed support for the technology, the level of financial and regulatory incentives offered will significantly impact investor confidence, especially as the IEA net-zero outlook underscores Canada's need for much more electricity. A clear and stable policy framework will be essential for attracting emitters to the project.

The future of Enbridge's CCS project remains uncertain. Capital Power's withdrawal is a setback, but Enbridge's continued commitment suggests they believe the technology holds promise. Whether they can find enough emitters to justify the project's development will be a critical test. The outcome will have significant implications for the future of CCS technology in Alberta and Canada's broader efforts to achieve net-zero emissions, including Canada-Germany clean energy cooperation that seeks to scale low-carbon fuels.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

EPA Power Plant Emissions Rule proposes strict greenhouse gas limits for coal and gas units, leveraging carbon capture (CCS) under the Clean Air Act to cut CO2 and accelerate decarbonization of the U.S. grid.

Key Points

A proposed EPA rule setting CO2 limits for coal and gas plants, using CCS to cut power-sector greenhouse gases.

✅ Applies to existing and new coal and large gas units

✅ Targets near-zero CO2 by 2038 via CCS or retirement

✅ Cites grid, health, and climate benefits; faces legal challenges

The Biden administration has proposed new limits on greenhouse gas emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants, its most ambitious effort yet to roll back planet-warming pollution from the nation’s second-largest contributor to climate change.

A rule announced by the Environmental Protection Agency could force power plants to capture smokestack emissions using a technology that has long been promised but is not used widely in the United States, and arrives amid changes stemming from the NEPA rewrite that affect project reviews.

“This administration is committed to meeting the urgency of the climate crisis and taking the necessary actions required,″ said EPA Administrator Michael Regan.

The plan would not only “improve air quality nationwide, but it will bring substantial health benefits to communities all across the country, especially our front-line communities ... that have unjustly borne the burden of pollution for decades,” Regan said in a speech at the University of Maryland.

President Joe Biden, whose climate agenda includes a clean electricity standard as a key pillar, called the plan “a major step forward in the climate crisis and protecting public health.”

If finalized, the proposed regulation would mark the first time the federal government has restricted carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, following a Trump-era replacement of Obama’s power plant overhaul, which generate about 25% of U.S. greenhouse gas pollution, second only to the transportation sector. The rule also would apply to future electric plants and would avoid up to 617 million metric tons of carbon dioxide through 2042, equivalent to annual emissions of 137 million passenger vehicles, the EPA said.

Almost all coal plants — along with large, frequently used gas-fired plants — would have to cut or capture nearly all their carbon dioxide emissions by 2038, the EPA said, a timeline that echoed concerns raised during proposed electricity pricing changes in the prior administration. Plants that cannot meet the new standards would be forced to retire.

The plan is likely to be challenged by industry groups and Republican-leaning states, much like litigation over the Affordable Clean Energy rule unfolded in recent years. They have accused the Democratic administration of overreach on environmental regulations and warn of a pending reliability crisis for the electric grid. The power plant rule is one of at least a half-dozen EPA rules limiting power plant emissions and wastewater treatment rules.

“It’s truly an onslaught” of government regulation “designed to shut down the coal fleet prematurely,″ said Rich Nolan, president and CEO of the National Mining Association.

Regan denied that the power plant rule was aimed at shutting down the coal sector, but acknowledged — even after the end to the 'war on coal' rhetoric — “We will see some coal retirements.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

New England oil-fired generation surges as ISO New England manages a cold snap, dual-fuel switching, and a natural gas price spike, highlighting winter reliability challenges, LNG and pipeline limits, and rising CO2 emissions.

Key Points

Reliance on oil-burning power plants during winter demand spikes when natural gas is costly or constrained.

✅ Driven by dual-fuel switching amid high natural gas prices

✅ ISO-NE winter reliability rules encourage oil stockpiles

✅ Raises CO2 emissions despite coal retirements and renewables growth

New England is relying on oil-fired generators for the most electricity since 2018 as a frigid blast boosts demand for power and natural gas prices soar across markets. 

Oil generators were producing more than 4,200 megawatts early Thursday, accounting for about a quarter of the grid’s power supply, according to ISO New England. That was the most since Jan. 6, 2018, when oil plants produced as much as 6.4 gigawatts, or 32% of the grid’s output, said Wood Mackenzie analyst Margaret Cashman.  

Oil is typically used only when demand spikes, because of higher costs and emissions concerns. Consumption has been consistently high over the past three weeks as some generators switch from gas, which has surged in price in recent months. New England generators are producing power from oil at an average rate of almost 1.8 gigawatts so far this month, the highest for January in at least five years. 

Oil’s share declined to 16% Friday morning ahead of an expected snowstorm, which was “a surprise,” Cashman said. 

“It makes me wonder if some of those generators are aiming to reserve their fuel for this weekend,” she said.

During the recent cold snap, more than a tenth of the electricity generated in New England has been produced by power plants that haven’t happened for at least 15 years.

Burning oil for electricity was standard practice throughout the region for decades. It was once our most common fuel for power and as recently as 2000, fully 19% of the six-state region’s electricity came from burning oil, according to ISO-New England, more than any other source except nuclear power at the time.

Since then, however, natural gas has gotten so cheap that most oil-fired plants have been shut or converted to burn gas, to the point that just 1% of New England’s electricity came from oil in 2018, whereas about half our power came from natural gas generation regionally during that period. This is good because natural gas produces less pollution, both particulates and greenhouse gasses, although exactly how much less is a matter of debate.

But as you probably know, there’s a problem: Natural gas is also used for heating, which gets first dibs. Prolonged cold snaps require so much gas to keep us warm, a challenge echoed in Ontario’s electricity system as supply tightens, that there might not be enough for power plants – at least, not at prices they’re willing to pay.

After we came close to rolling brownouts during the polar vortex in the 2017-18 winter because gas-fired power plants cut back so much, ISO-NE, which has oversight of the power grid, established “winter reliability” rules. The most important change was to pay power plants to become dual-fuel, meaning they can switch quickly between natural gas and oil, and to stockpile oil for winter cold snaps.

We’re seeing that practice in action right now, as many dual-fuel plants have switched away from gas to oil, just as was intended.

That switch is part of the reason EPA says the region’s carbon emissions have gone up in the pandemic, from 22 million tons of CO2 in 2019 to 24 million tons in 2021. That reverses a long trend caused partly by closing of coal plants and partly by growing solar and offshore wind capacity: New England power generation produced 36 million tons of CO2 a decade ago.

So if we admit that a return to oil burning is bad, and it is, what can we do in future winters? There are many possibilities, including tapping more clean imports such as Canadian hydropower to diversify supply.

The most obvious solution is to import more natural gas, especially from fracked fields in New York state and Pennsylvania. But efforts to build pipelines to do that have been shot down a couple of times and seem unlikely to go forward and importing more gas via ocean tanker in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) is also an option, but hits limits in terms of port facilities.

Aside from NIMBY concerns, the problem with building pipelines or ports to import more gas is that pipelines and ports are very expensive. Once they’re built they create a financial incentive to keep using natural gas for decades to justify the expense, similar to moves such as Ontario’s new gas plants that lock in generation. That makes it much harder for New England to decarbonize and potentially leaves ratepayers on the hook for a boatload of stranded costs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Wind Power Policy Shift signals renewed investment in renewable energy, wind farms, and grid resilience, aligning with climate goals, lower electricity costs, job creation, and turbine technology for cleaner, diversified power.

Key Points

A provincial pivot to expand wind energy, meet climate goals, lower costs, and boost jobs across Ontario’s power system.

✅ Diversifies Ontario's grid with scalable renewable capacity.

✅ Targets emissions cuts while stabilizing electricity prices.

✅ Spurs rural investment, supply chains, and skilled jobs.

Ontario’s energy landscape is undergoing a significant transformation as Premier Doug Ford makes a notable shift in his approach to wind power. This change represents a strategic pivot in the province’s energy policy, potentially altering the future of Ontario’s power generation, environmental goals, and economic prospects.

The Backdrop: Ford’s Initial Stance on Wind Power

When Doug Ford first assumed the role of Premier in 2018, his administration was marked by a strong stance against renewable energy projects, including wind power, with Ford later saying he was proud of tearing up contracts as part of this shift. Ford’s government inherited a legacy of ambitious renewable energy commitments from the previous Liberal administration under Kathleen Wynne, which had invested heavily in wind and solar energy. The Ford government, however, was critical of these initiatives, arguing that they resulted in high energy costs and a surplus of power that was not always needed.

In 2019, Ford’s government began rolling back several renewable energy projects, including wind farms, and was soon tested by the Cornwall wind farm ruling that scrutinized a cancellation. This move was driven by a promise to reduce electricity bills and cut what was perceived as wasteful spending on green energy. The cancellation of several wind projects led to frustration among environmental advocates and the renewable energy sector, who viewed the decision as a setback for Ontario’s climate goals.

The Shift: Embracing Wind Power

Fast forward to 2024, and Premier Ford’s administration is taking a markedly different approach. The recent policy shift, which moves to reintroduce renewable projects, indicates a newfound openness to wind power, reflecting a broader acknowledgment of the changing dynamics in energy needs and environmental priorities.

Several factors appear to have influenced this shift:

1. Rising Energy Demands and Climate Goals: Ontario’s growing energy demands, coupled with the pressing need to address climate change, have necessitated a reevaluation of the province’s energy strategy. As Canada commits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to cleaner energy sources, wind power is increasingly seen as a crucial component of this strategy. Ford’s change in direction aligns with these national and global goals.

2. Economic Considerations: The economic landscape has also evolved since Ford’s initial opposition to wind power. The cost of wind energy has decreased significantly over the past few years, making it a more competitive and viable option compared to traditional energy sources, as competitive wind power gains momentum in markets worldwide. Additionally, the wind energy sector promises substantial job creation and economic benefits, which are appealing in the context of post-pandemic recovery and economic growth.

3. Public Opinion and Pressure: Public opinion and advocacy groups have played a role in shaping policy. There has been a growing demand from Ontarians for more sustainable and environmentally friendly energy solutions. The Ford administration has been responsive to these concerns, recognizing the importance of addressing public and environmental pressures.

4. Technological Advancements: Advances in wind turbine technology have improved efficiency and reduced the impact on wildlife and local communities. Modern wind farms are less intrusive and more effective, addressing some of the concerns that were previously associated with wind power.

Implications of the Policy Shift

The implications of Ford’s shift towards wind power are far-reaching. Here are some key areas affected by this change:

1. Energy Portfolio Diversification: By reembracing wind power, Ontario will diversify its energy portfolio, reducing its reliance on fossil fuels and increasing the proportion of renewable energy in the mix. This shift will contribute to a more resilient and sustainable energy system.

2. Environmental Impact: Increased investment in wind power will contribute to Ontario’s efforts to combat climate change. Wind energy is a clean, renewable source that produces no greenhouse gas emissions during operation. This aligns with broader environmental goals and helps mitigate the impact of climate change.

3. Economic Growth and Job Creation: The wind power sector has the potential to drive significant economic growth and create jobs. Investments in wind farms and associated infrastructure can stimulate local economies, particularly in rural areas where many wind farms are located.

4. Energy Prices: While the initial shift away from wind power was partly motivated by concerns about high energy costs, including exposure to costly cancellation fees in some cases, the decreasing cost of wind energy could help stabilize or even lower electricity prices in the long term. As wind power becomes a larger component of Ontario’s energy supply, it could contribute to a more stable and affordable energy market.

Moving Forward: Challenges and Opportunities

Despite the positive aspects of this policy shift, there are challenges to consider, and other provinces have faced setbacks such as the Alberta wind farm scrapped by TransAlta that illustrate potential hurdles. Integrating wind power into the existing grid requires careful planning and investment in grid infrastructure. Additionally, addressing local concerns about wind farms, such as their impact on landscapes and wildlife, will be crucial to gaining broader acceptance.

Overall, Doug Ford’s shift towards wind power represents a significant and strategic change in Ontario’s energy policy. It reflects a broader understanding of the evolving energy landscape and the need for a sustainable and economically viable energy future. As the province navigates this new direction, the success of this policy will depend on effective implementation, ongoing stakeholder engagement, and a commitment to balancing environmental, economic, and social considerations, even as the electricity future debate continues among party leaders.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Hydro-Quebec NECEC Transmission Line faces Maine PUC scrutiny over clean energy claims, greenhouse gas emissions, spillage capacity, resource shuffling, and Massachusetts contracts, amid opposition from natural gas generators and environmental groups debating public need.

Key Points

A $1B Maine corridor for Quebec hydropower to Massachusetts, debated over emissions, spillage, and public need.

✅ Maine PUC weighing public need and ratepayer benefits

✅ Emissions impact disputed: resource shuffling vs new supply

✅ Hydro-Quebec spillage claims questioned without data

As Maine regulators are deciding whether to approve construction of a $1 billion electricity corridor across much of western Maine, the Canadian hydroelectric utility poised to make billions of dollars from the project has been absent from the process.

This has left both opponents and supporters of the line arguing about how much available energy the utility has to send through a completed line, and whether that energy will help fulfill the mission of the project: fighting climate change.

And while the utility has avoided making its case before regulators, which requires submitting to cross-examination and discovery, it has engaged in a public relations campaign to try and win support from the region's newspapers.

Government-owned Hydro-Quebec controls dams and reservoirs generating hydroelectricity throughout its namesake province. It recently signed agreements to sell electricity across the proposed line, named the New England Clean Energy Connect, to Massachusetts as part of the state's effort to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, including natural gas.

At the Maine Public Utilities Commission, attorneys for Central Maine Power Co., which would build and maintain the line, have been sparring with the opposition over the line's potential impact on Maine and its electricity consumers. Leading the opposition is a coalition of natural gas electricity generators that stand to lose business should the line be built, as well as the Natural Resources Council of Maine, an environmental group.

That unusual alliance of environmental and business groups wants Hydro-Quebec to answer questions about its hydroelectric system, which they argue can't deliver the amount of electricity promised to Massachusetts without diverting energy from other regions.

In that scenario, critics say the line would not produce the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that CMP and Hydro-Quebec have made a central part of their pitch for the project. Instead, other markets currently buying energy from Hydro-Quebec, such as New York, Ontario and New Brunswick, would see hydroelectricity imports decrease and have to rely on other sources of energy, including coal or oil, to make up the difference. If that happened, the total amount of clean energy in the world would remain the same.

Opponents call this possibility "greenwashing." Massachusetts regulators have described these circumstances as "resource shuffling."

But CMP spokesperson John Carroll said that if hydropower was diverted from nearby markets to power Massachusetts, those markets would not turn to fossil fuels. Rather they would seek to develop other forms of renewable energy "leading to further reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the region."

Hydro-Quebec said it has plenty of capacity to increase its electricity exports to Massachusetts without diverting energy from other places.

However, Hydro-Quebec is not required to participate -- and has not voluntarily participated -- in regulatory hearings where it would be subject to cross examinations and have to testify under oath. Some participants wish it would.

At a January hearing at the Maine Public Utilities Commission, hearing examiner Mitchell Tannenbaum had to warn experts giving testimony to "refrain from commentary regarding whether Hydro-Quebec is here or not" after they complained about its absence when trying to predict potential ramifications of the line.

"I would have hoped they would have been visible and available to answer legitimate questions in all of these states through which their power is going to be flowing," said Dot Kelly, a member of the executive committee at the Maine Chapter of the Sierra Club who has participated in the line's regulatory proceedings as an individual. "If you're going to have a full and fair process, they have to be there."

[What you need to know about the CMP transmission line proposed for Maine]

While Hydro-Quebec has not presented data on its system directly to Maine regulators, it has brought its case to the press. Central to that case is the fact that it's "spilling" water from its reservoirs because it is limited by how much electricity it can export. It said that it could send more water through its turbines and lower reservoir levels, eliminating spillage and creating more energy, if only it had a way to get that energy to market. Hydro-Quebec said the line would make that possible, and, in doing so, help lower emissions and fight climate change.

"We have that excess potential that we need to use. Essentially, it's a good problem to have so long as you can find an export market," Hydro-Quebec spokesperson Serge Abergel told the Bangor Daily News.

Hydro-Quebec made its "spillage" case to the editorial boards of The Boston Globe, The Portland Press Herald and the BDN, winning qualified endorsements from the Globe and Press Herald. (The BDN editorial board has not weighed in on the project).

Opponents have questioned why Hydro-Quebec is willing to present their case to the press but not regulators.

"We need a better answer than 'just trust us,'" Natural Resources Council of Maine attorney Sue Ely said. "What's clear is that CMP and HQ are engaging in a full-court publicity tour peddling false transparency in an attempt to sell their claims of greenhouse gas benefits."

Energy generators aren't typically parties to public utility commission proceedings involving the building of transmission lines, but Maine regulators don't typically evaluate projects that will help customers in another state buy energy generated in a foreign country.

"It's a unique case," said Maine Public Advocate and former Democratic Senate Minority Leader Barry Hobbins, who has neither endorsed nor opposed the project. Hobbins noted the project was not proposed to improve reliability for Maine electricity customers, which is typically the point of new transmission line proposals evaluated by the commission. Instead, the project "is a straight shot to Massachusetts," Hobbins said.

Maine Public Utilities Commission spokesperson Harry Lanphear agreed. "The Commission has never considered this type of project before," he said in an email.

In order to proceed with the project, CMP must convince the Maine Public Utilities Commission that the proposed line would fill a "public need" and benefit Mainers. Among other benefits, CMP said it will help lower electricity costs and create jobs in Maine. A decision is expected in the spring.

Given the uniqueness of the case, even the commission seems unsure about how to apply the vague "public need" standard. On Jan. 14, commission staff asked case participants to weigh in on how it should apply Maine law when evaluating the project, including whether the hydroelectricity that would travel over the line should be considered "renewable" and whether Maine's own carbon reduction goals are relevant to the case.

James Speyer, an energy consultant whose firm was hired by natural gas company and project opponent Calpine to analyze the market impacts of the line, said he has testified before roughly 20 state public utility commissions and has never seen a proceeding like this one.

"I've never been in a case where one of the major beneficiaries of the PUC decision is not in the case, never has filed a report, has never had to provide any data to support its assertions, and never has been subject to cross examination," Speyer said. "Hydro-Quebec is like a black box."

Hydro-Quebec would gladly appear before the Maine Public Utilities Commission, but it has not been invited, said spokesperson Abergel.

"The PUC is doing its own process," Abergel said. "If the PUC were to invite us, we'd gladly intervene. We're very willing to collaborate in that sense."

But that's not how the commission process works. Individuals and organizations can intervene in cases, but the commission does not invite them to the proceedings, commission spokesperson Lanphear said.

CMP spokesperson Carroll dismissed concerns over emissions, noting that Hydro-Quebec is near the end of completing a more than 15-year effort to develop its clean energy resources. "They will have capacity to satisfy the contract with Massachusetts in their reservoirs," Carroll said.

While Maine regulators are evaluating the transmission line, Massachusetts' Department of Public Utilities is deciding whether to approve 20-year contracts between Hydro-Quebec and that state's electric utilities. Those contracts, which Hydro-Quebec has estimated could be worth close to $8 billion, govern how the utility sells electricity over the line.

Dean Murphy, a consultant hired by the Massachusetts Attorney General's office to review the contracts, testified before Massachusetts regulators that the agreements do not require a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. Murphy also warned the contracts don't actually require Hydro-Quebec to increase the total amount of energy it sends to New England, as energy could be shuffled from established lines to the proposed CMP line to satisfy the contracts.

Parties in the Massachusetts proceeding are also trying to get more information from Hydro-Quebec. Energy giant NextEra is currently trying to convince Massachusetts regulators to issue a subpoena to force Hydro-Quebec to answer questions about how its exports might change with the construction of the transmission line. Hydro-Quebec and CMP have opposed the motion.

Hydro-Quebec has a reputation for guarding its privacy, according to Hobbins.

"It would have been easier to not have to play Sherlock Holmes and try to guess or try to calculate without having a direct 'yes' or 'no' response from the entity itself," Hobbins said.

Ultimately, the burden of proving that Maine needs the line falls on CMP, which is also responsible for making sure regulators have all the information they need to make a decision on the project, said former Maine Public Utilities Commission Chairman Kurt Adams.

"Central Maine Power should provide the PUC with all the info that it needs," Adams said. "If CMP can't, then one might argue that they haven't met their burden."

'They treat HQ with nothing but distrust'

If completed, the line would bring 9.45 terawatt hours of electricity from Quebec to Massachusetts annually, or about a sixth of the total amount of electricity Massachusetts currently uses every year (and roughly 80 percent of Maine's annual load). CMP's parent company Avangrid would make an estimated $60 million a year from the line, according to financial analysts.

As part of its legally mandated efforts to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change, Massachusetts would pay the $950 million cost of constructing the line. The state currently relies on natural gas, a fossil fuel, for nearly 70 percent of its electricity, a figure that helps explain natural gas companies' opposition to the project.

A panel of experts recently warned that humanity has 12 years to keep global temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius and prevent the worst effects of climate change, which include floods, droughts and extreme heat.

The line could lower New England's annual carbon emissions by as much as 3 million metric tons, an amount roughly equal to Washington D.C.'s annual emissions. Opponents worry that reduction could be mostly offset by increases in other markets.

But while both sides have claimed they are fighting for the environment, much of the debate features giant corporations with headquarters outside of New England fighting over the future of the region's electricity market, echoing customer backlash seen in other utility takeovers.

Hydro-Quebec is owned by the people of Quebec, and CMP is owned by Avangrid, which is in turn owned by Spanish energy giant Iberdrola. Leading the charge against the line are several energy companies in the Fortune 500, including Houston-based Calpine and Florida-based NextEra Energy.

However, only one side of the debate counts environmental groups as part of its coalition, and, curiously enough, that's the side with fossil fuel companies.

Some environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Council of Maine and Environment Maine, have come out against the line, while others, including the Acadia Center and the Conservation Law Foundation, are still deciding whether to support or oppose the project. So far, none have endorsed the line.

"It is discouraging that some of the environmental groups are so opposed, but it seems the best is the enemy of the good," said CMP's Carroll in an email. "They seem to have no sense of urgency; and they treat HQ with nothing but distrust."

Much of the environmentally minded opposition to the project focuses on the impact the line would have on local wildlife and tourism.

Sandi Howard administers the Say NO To NECEC Facebook page and lives in Caratunk, one of the communities along the proposed path of the line. She said opposition to the line might change if it was proven to reduce emissions.

"If it were going to truly reduce global CO2 emissions, I think it would be be a different conversation," Howard said.

Not the first choice

Before Maine, New Hampshire had its own debate over whether it should serve as a conduit between Quebec and Massachusetts. The proposed Northern Pass transmission line would have run the length of the state. It was Massachusetts' first choice to bring Quebec hydropower to its residents.

But New Hampshire's Site Evaluation Committee unanimously voted to reject the Northern Pass project in February 2018 on the grounds that the project's sponsor, Eversource, had failed to prove the project would not interfere with local business and tourism. Though it was the source of the electricity that would have traveled over the line, Hydro-Quebec was not a party to the proceedings.

In its decision, the committee noted the project would not reduce emissions if it was not coupled with a "new source of hydropower" and the power delivered across the line was "diverted from Ontario and New York." The committee added that it was unclear if the power would be new or diverted.

The next month, Massachusetts replaced Northern Pass by selecting CMP's proposed line. As the project came before Maine regulators, questions about Hydro-Quebec and emissions persisted. Two different analyses of CMP's proposed line, including one by the Maine Public Utility Commission's independent consultant, found the line would greatly reduce New England's emissions.

But neither of those studies took into account the line's impact on emissions outside of New England. A study by Calpine's consultant, Energyzt, found New England's emissions reduction could be mostly offset by increased emissions in other areas, including New Brunswick and New York, that would see hydroelectricity imports shrink as energy was redirected to fulfill the contract with Massachusetts.

'They failed in any way to back up those spillage claims'

Hydro-Quebec seemed content to let CMP fight for the project alone before regulators for much of 2018. But at the end of the year, the utility took a more proactive approach, meeting with editorial boards and providing a two-page letter detailing its "spillage" issues to CMP, which entered it into the record at the Maine Public Utilities Commission.

The letter provided figures on the amount of water the utility spilled that could have been converted into sellable energy, if only Hydro-Quebec had a way to get it to market. Instead, by "spilling" the water, the company essentially wasted it.

Instead of sending water through turbines or storing it in reservoirs, hydroelectric operators sometimes discharge water held behind dams down spillways. This can be done for environmental reasons. Other times it is done because the operator has so much water it cannot convert it into electricity or store it, which is usually a seasonal issue: Reservoirs often contain the most water in the spring as temperatures warm and ice melts.

Hydro-Quebec said that, in 2017, it spilled water that could have produced 4.5 terawatt hours of electricity, or slightly more than half the energy needed to fulfill the Massachusetts contracts. In 2018, the letter continued, Hydro-Quebec spilled water that could have been converted into 10.4 terawatts worth of energy. The company said it didn't spill at all due to transmission constraints prior to 2017.

The contracts Hydro-Quebec signed with the Massachusetts utilities are for 9.45 terawatt hours annually for 20 years. In its letter, the utility essentially showed it had only one year of data to show it could cover the terms of the contract with "spilled" energy.

"Reservoir levels have been increasing in the last 15 years. Having reached their maximum levels, spillage maneuvers became necessary in 2017 and 2018," said Hydro-Quebec spokesperson Lynn St. Laurent.

By providing the letter through CMP, Hydro-Quebec did not have to subject its spillage figures to cross examination.

Dr. Shaleen Jain, a civil and environmental engineering professor at the University of Maine, said that, while spilled water could be converted into power generation in some circumstances, spills happen for many different reasons. Knowing whether spillage can be translated into energy requires a great deal of analysis.

"Not all of it can be repurposed or used for hydropower," Jain said.

In December, one of the Maine Public Utility Commission's independent consultants, Gabrielle Roumy, told the commission that there's "no way" to "predict how much water would be spilled each and every year." Roumy, who previously worked for Hydro-Quebec, added that even after seeing the utility's spillage figures, he believed it would need to divert energy from other markets to fulfill its commitment to Massachusetts.

"I think at this point we're still comfortable with our assumptions that, you know, energy would generally be redirected from other markets to NECEC if it were built," Roumy said.

In January, Tanya Bodell, the founder and executive director of consultant Energyzt, testified before the commission on behalf of Calpine that it was impossible to know why Hydro-Quebec was spilling without more data.

"There's a lot of details you'd have to look at in order to properly assess what the reason for the spillage is," Bodell said. "And you have to go into an hourly level because the flows vary across the year, within the month, the week, the days. ...And, frankly, it would have been nice if Hydro-Quebec was here and brought their model and allowed us to see how this could help them to sell more."

Even though CMP and Hydro-Quebec's path to securing approval of the project does not go through the Legislature, and despite a Maine court ruling that energized Hydro-Quebec's export bid, lawmakers have taken notice of Hydro-Quebec's absence. Rep. Seth Berry, D-Bowdoinham, the House chairman of the Joint Committee On Energy Utilities and Technology and a frequent critic of CMP, said he would like to see Hydro-Quebec "show up and subject their proposal to examination and full analysis and public examination by the regulators and the people of Maine."

"They're trying to sell an incredibly lucrative proposal, and they failed in any way to back up those spillage claims with defensible numbers and defensible analysis," Berry said.

Berry was part of a bipartisan group of Maine lawmakers that wrote a letter to Massachusetts regulators last year expressing concerns about the project, which included doubts about whether the line would actually reduce global gas emissions. On Monday, he announced legislation that would direct the state to create an independent entity to buy out CMP from its foreign investors.

'No benefit to remaining quiet'

Hydro-Quebec would like to provide answers, but "there is always a commercially sensitive information concern when we do these things," said spokesperson Abergel.

"There might be stuff we can do, having an independent study that looks at all of this. I'm not worried about the conclusion," Abergel said. "I'm worried about how long it takes."

Instead of asking Hydro-Quebec questions directly, participants in both Maine and Massachusetts regulatory proceedings have had to direct questions for Hydro-Quebec to CMP. That arrangement may be part of Hydro-Quebec's strategy to control its information, said former Maine Public Utilities Commissioner David Littell.

"From a tactical point of view, it may be more beneficial for the evidence to be put through Avangrid and CMP, which actually doesn't have that back-up info, so can't provide it," Littell said.

Getting information about the line from CMP, and its parent company Avangrid, has at times been difficult, opponents say.

In August 2018, the commission's staff warned CMP in a legal filing that it was concerned "about what appears to be a lack of completeness and timeliness by CMP/Avangrid in responding to data requests in this proceeding."

The trouble in getting information from Hydro-Quebec and CMP only creates more questions for Hydro-Quebec, said Jeremy Payne, executive director of the Maine Renewable Energy Association, which opposes the line in favor of Maine-based renewables.

"There's a few questions that should have relatively simple answers. But not answering a couple of those questions creates more questions," Payne said. "Why didn't you intervene in the docket? Why are you not a party to the case? Why won't you respond to these concerns? Why wouldn't you open yourself up to discovery?"

"I don't understand why they won't put it to bed," Payne said. "If you've got the proof to back it up, then there's no benefit to remaining quiet."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

US energy mix shows how the electric grid blends renewables, fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydro, varying by ISO/RTO markets, utilities, and state policies, affecting carbon emissions, pricing, reliability, and access.

Key Points

The US energy mix is the grid's source breakdown by region: fossil fuels, renewables, nuclear, and hydro.

✅ Check ISO or RTO dashboards for real-time generation by fuel source.

✅ Utilities may offer green power plans or RECs at modest premiums.

✅ Energy mix shifts with policy, pricing, and grid reliability needs.

There are few resources more important than energy. Sure, you may die if you don't eat for days. But your phone will die if you go too long without charging it. Energy feeds tech, the internet, city infrastructure, refrigerators, lights, and has evolved throughout U.S. history in profound ways. You get the idea. Yet unlike our other common needs, such as food, energy sources aren't exactly front of mind for most people. 

"I think a lot of people don't put a lot of bandwidth into thinking about this part of their lives," said Richard McMahon, the SVP of energy supply and finance at Edison Electric Institute, a trade group that represents investor-owned electric companies in the US. 

It makes sense. For most Americans, electricity is always there, and in many locations, there's not much of a choice involved, even as electricity demand is flat across the U.S. today. You sign up with a utility when you move into a new residence and pay your bills when they're due. 

But there's an important reality that indifference eschews: In 2018, a third of the energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions in the US came from the electric power sector, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). 

A good chunk of that is from the residential sector, which consistently uses more energy than commercial customers, per EIA data.

Just as many people exercise choice when they eat, you typically also have a choice when it comes to your energy supply. That's not to say your current offering isn't what you want, or that switching will be easy or affordable, but "if you're a customer and want power with a certain attribute," McMahon said, "you can pretty much get it wherever you are." 

But first, you need to know the energy mix you have right now. As it turns out, it's not so straightforward. At all.

This brief guide may help. 

For some utility providers, you can find out if it publishes the energy mix online. Dominion Energy, which serves Idaho, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming, provides this information in a colored graphic. 

"Once you figure out who your utility is you can figure out what mix of resources they use," said Heidi Ratz, an electricity markets researcher at the World Resources Institute.

But not all utilities publish this information.

It has to do with their role in the grid and reflects utility industry trends in structure and markets. Some utility companies are vertically integrated; they generate power through nuclear plants or wind farms and distribute those electrons directly to their customers. Other utilities just distribute the power that different companies produce. 

Consider Consolidated Edison, or Con Ed, which distributes energy to parts of New York City. While reporting this story, Business Insider could not find information about the utility's energy mix online. When reached for comment, a spokesperson said, "we're indifferent to where it comes from."

That's because, in New York, distribution utilities like Con Ed often buy energy through a wholesale marketplace.

Take a look at this map. If you live in one of the colored regions, your electricity is sold on a wholesale market regulated by an organization called a regional transmission organization (RTO) or independent system operator (ISO). Distribution utilities like Con Ed often buy their energy through these markets, based on availability and cost, while raising questions about future utility revenue models as prices shift. 

Still, it's pretty easy to figure out where your energy comes from. Just look up the ISO or RTO website (such as NYISO or CAISO). Usually, these organizations will provide energy supply information in near-real time. 

That's exactly what Con Edison (which buys energy on the NYISO marketplace) suggested. As of Friday morning, roughly 40% of the energy on the market place was natural gas or other fossil fuels, 34% was nuclear, and about 22% was hydro. 

If you live in another region governed by an ISO or RTO, such as in most of California, you can do the same thing. Like NYISO, CAISO has a dashboard that shows (again, as of Friday morning) about 36% of the energy on the market comes from natural gas and more than 20% comes from renewables. 

In the map linked above, you'll notice that some of the ISOs and RTOs like MISO encompass enormous regions. That means that even if you figure out where the energy in your market comes from, it's not going to be geographically specific. But there are a couple of ways to drill down even further. 

The Environmental Protection Agency has a straightforward tool called Power Profiler. You can enter your zip code to see the fuel mix in your area. But it's not perfect. The data are from 2016 and, in some regions of the country like the upper Midwest, they aren't much more localized, and some import dirty electricity due to regional trading. 

The World Resources Institute also has a tool that allows you to see the electricity mix by state, based on 2017 data from EIA. These numbers represent power generation, not the electricity actually flowing into your sockets, but they offer a rough idea of what energy resources are operating in your state. 

One option is to check with your utility to see if it has a "green power" offering. Over 600 utilities across the country have one, according to the Climate Reality Project, though they often come at a slightly higher cost. It's typically on the scale of just a few more cents per kilowatt-hour. 

There are also independent, consumer-facing companies like Arcadia and Green Mountain Energy that allow you to source renewable energy, by virtually connecting you to community solar projects or purchasing Renewable Energy Certificates, or RECs, on your behalf, as America goes electric and more options emerge. 

"RECs measure an investment in a clean energy resource," Ratz said, in an email. "The goal of putting that resource on the grid is to push out the need for dirtier resources."

The good news: Even if you do nothing, your energy mix will get cleaner. Coal production has fallen to lows not seen since the 1980s, amid disruptions in coal and nuclear sectors that affect reliability and costs, while renewable electricity generation has doubled since 2008. So whether you like it or not, you'll be roped into the clean energy boom one way or another. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News