105 dead in China mine explosion

Pickering Nuclear False Alert Investigation probes Ontario's emergency alert system after a provincewide cellphone, radio, and TV warning, assessing human error, Pelmorex safeguards, Emergency Management Ontario oversight, and communication delays.

Key Points

An Ontario probe into the erroneous Pickering nuclear alert, focusing on human error, system safeguards, and oversight.

✅ Human error during routine testing suspected

✅ Pelmorex safeguards and EMO protocols under review

✅ Two-hour all-clear delay prompts communication fixes

An investigation into a mistaken Pickering alert warning of an incident at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station will be completed fairly quickly, Ontario's solicitor general said.

Sylvia Jones tapped the chief of Emergency Management Ontario to investigate how the alert warning of an unspecified problem at the facility was sent in error to cellphones, radios and TVs across the province at about 7:30 a.m. Sunday.

"It's very important for me, for the people of Ontario, to know exactly what happened on Sunday morning," said Jones. "Having said that, I do not anticipate this is going to be a long, drawn-out investigation. I want to know what happened and equally important, I want some recommendations on insurances and changes we can make to the system to make sure it doesn't happen again."

Initial observations suggest human error was responsible for the alert that was sent out during routine tests of the emergency alert, Jones said.

"This has never happened in the history of the tests that they do every day, twice a day, but I do want to know exactly all of the issues related to it, whether it was one human error or whether it was a series of things."

Martin Belanger, the director of public alerting for Pelmorex, a company that operates the alert system, said there are a number of safeguards built in, including having two separate platforms for training and live alerts.

"The software has some steps and some features built in to minimize that risk and to make sure that users will be able to know whether or not they're sending an alert through the...training platform or whether they're accessing the live system in the case of a real emergency," he said.

Only authorized users have access to the system and the province manages that, Belanger said. Once in the live system, features make the user aware of which platform they are using, with various prompts and messages requiring the user's confirmation. There is a final step that also requires the user to confirm their intent of issuing an alert to cellphones, radio and TVs, Belanger said.

On Sunday, a follow-up alert was sent to cellphones nearly two hours after the original notification, and similar grid alerts in Alberta underscore timing and public expectations.

NDP energy critic Peter Tabuns is critical of that delay, noting that ongoing utility scam warnings can further erode public trust.

"That's a long time for people to be waiting to find out what's really going on," he said. "If people lose confidence in this system, the ability to use it when there is a real emergency will be impaired. That's dangerous."

Treasury Board President Peter Bethlenfalvy, who represents the riding of Pickering-Uxbridge, said getting that alert Sunday morning was "a shock to the system," and he too wants the investigation to address the reason for the all-clear delay.

"We all have a lot of questions," he said. "I think the public has every right to know exactly what went on and we feel exactly the same way."

People in the community know the facility is safe, Bethlenfalvy said.

"We have some of the safest nuclear assets in the world -- the safest -- at 60 per cent of Ontario's electricity," he said.

A poll released Monday found that 82 per cent of Canadians are concerned about spills from nuclear reactors contaminating drinking water and 77 per cent are concerned about neighbourhood safety and security risks for those living close to nuclear plants. Oraclepoll Research surveyed 2,094 people across the country on behalf of Friends of the Earth between Jan. 2 and 12, the day of the false alert. The have a margin of error of plus or minus 2.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

The wording of Sunday's alert caused much initial confusion, and events like a power outage in London show how morning disruptions can amplify concern, warning residents within 10 kilometres of the plant of "an incident," though there was no "abnormal" release of radioactivity and residents didn't need to take protective steps, but emergency crews were responding.

In the event of a real emergency, the wording would be different, Jones said.

"There are a number of different alerts that are already prepared and are ready to go," she said. "We have the ability to localize it to the communities that are impacted, but because this was a test, it went provincewide."

Jones said she expects the results of the probe to be made public.

The Pickering nuclear plant has been operating since 1971, and had been scheduled to be decommissioned this year, but the former Liberal government -- and the current Progressive Conservative government -- committed to keeping it open until 2024. Decommissioning is now set to start in 2028.

It operates six CANDU reactors, generates 14 per cent of Ontario's electricity and is responsible for 4,500 jobs across the region, according to OPG, and OPG's credit rating remains stable.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Hydro One employees supported the Province of Ontario in the fight against COVID-19.

The Green party is calling on the province to use this opportunity to review its nuclear emergency response plan, including pandemic staffing contingencies, last updated in 2017 and subject to review every five years.

Toronto Mayor John Tory praised Ontario for swiftly launching an investigation, but said communication between city and provincial officials wasn't what it should have been under the circumstances.

"It was a poor showing and I think everybody involved knows that," he said. "We've got to make sure it's not repeated."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Shift from Fossil Fuels to Renewables signals an energy transition and decarbonization, as investors favor wind and solar over coal, oil, and gas due to falling ROI, policy shifts, and accelerating clean-tech innovation.

Key Points

An economic and policy-driven move redirecting capital from coal, oil, and gas to scalable wind and solar power.

✅ Driven by ROI, risk, and protests curbing fossil fuel projects

✅ Coal declines as wind and solar capacity surges globally

✅ Policy, technology, and markets speed the energy transition

This article is an excerpt from "Changing Tides: An Ecologist's Journey to Make Peace with the Anthropocene" by Alejandro Frid. Reproduced with permission from New Society Publishers. The book releases Oct. 15.

The climate and biodiversity crises reflect the stories that we have allowed to infiltrate the collective psyche of industrial civilization. It is high time to let go of these stories. Unclutter ourselves. Regain clarity. Make room for other stories that can help us reshape our ways of being in the world.

For starters, I’d love to let go of what has been our most venerated and ingrained story since the mid-1700s: that burning more fossil fuels is synonymous with prosperity. Letting go of that story shouldn’t be too hard these days. Financial investment over the past decade has been shifting very quickly away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energies, as Europe's oil majors increasingly pivot to electrification. Even Bob Dudley, group chief executive of BP — one of the largest fossil fuel corporations in the world — acknowledged the trend, writing in the "BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2017": "The relentless drive to improve energy efficiency is causing global energy consumption overall to decelerate. And, of course, the energy mix is shifting towards cleaner, lower carbon fuels, driven by environmental needs and technological advances." Dudley went on:

Coal consumption fell sharply for the second consecutive year, with its share within primary energy falling to its lowest level since 2004. Indeed, coal production and consumption in the U.K. completed an entire cycle, falling back to levels last seen almost 200 years ago around the time of the Industrial Revolution, with the U.K. power sector recording its first-ever coal-free day in April of this year. In contrast, renewable energy globally led by wind and solar power grew strongly, helped by continuing technological advances.

According to Dudley’s team, global production of oil and natural gas also slowed down in 2016. Meanwhile, that same year, the combined power provided by wind and solar energy increased by 14.6 percent: the biggest jump on record. All in all, since 2005, the installed capacity for renewable energy has grown exponentially, doubling every 5.5 years, as investment incentives expand to accelerate clean power.

The shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewables has been happening not because investors suddenly became science-literate, ethical beings, but because most investors follow the money, and Trump-era oil policies even reshaped Wall Street’s energy strategies.

It is important to celebrate that King Coal — that grand initiator of the Industrial Revolution and nastiest of fossil fuels — has just begun to lose its power over people and the atmosphere. But it is even more important to understand the underlying causes for these changes. The shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewables has been happening not because the bulk of investors suddenly became science-literate, ethical beings, but because most investors follow the money.

The easy fossil fuels — the kind you used to be able to extract with a large profit margin and relatively low risk of disaster — are essentially gone. Almost all that is left are the dregs: unconventional fossil fuels such as bitumen, or untapped offshore oil reserves in very deep water or otherwise challenging environments, like the Arctic. Sure, the dregs are massive enough to keep tempting investors. There is so much unconventional oil and shale gas left underground that, if we burned it, we would warm the world by 6 degrees or more. But unconventional fossil fuels are very expensive and energy-intensive to extract, refine and market. Additionally, new fossil fuel projects, at least in my part of the world, have become hair triggers for social unrest. For instance, Burnaby Mountain, near my home in British Columbia, where renewable electricity in B.C. is expanding, is the site of a proposed bitumen pipeline expansion where hundreds of people have been arrested since 2015 during multiple acts of civil disobedience against new fossil fuel infrastructure. By triggering legal action and delaying the project, these protests have dented corporate profits. So return on investment for fossil fuels has been dropping.

It is no coincidence that in 2017, Petronas, a huge transnational energy corporation, withdrew their massive proposal to build liquefied natural gas infrastructure on the north coast of British Columbia, as Canada's race to net-zero gathers pace across industry. Petronas backed out not because of climate change or to protect essential rearing habitat for salmon, but to backpedal from a deal that would fail to make them richer.

Shifting investment away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy, even as fossil-fuel workers signal readiness to support the transition, does not mean we have entirely ditched that tired old story about fossil fuel prosperity.

Neoliberal shifts to favor renewable energies can be completely devoid of concern for climate change. While in office, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry questioned climate science and cheered for the oil industry, yet that did not stop him from directing his state towards an expansion of wind and solar energy, even as President Obama argued that decarbonization is irreversible and anchored in long-term economics. Perry saw money to be made by batting for both teams, and merely did what most neoliberal entrepreneurs would have done.

The right change for the wrong reasons brings no guarantees. Shifting investment away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy does not mean we have entirely ditched that tired old story about fossil fuel prosperity. Once again, let’s look at Perry. As U.S. secretary of energy under Trump’s presidency, in 2017 he called the global shift from fossil fuels "immoral" and said the United States was "blessed" to provide fossil fuels for the world.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

BMW Hydrogen Fuel Cell Strategy positions iX5 and eDrive for zero-emission mobility, leveraging fuel cells, fast refueling, and hydrogen infrastructure as an alternative to BEVs, diversifying drivetrains across premium segments globally, rapidly.

Key Points

BMW's plan to commercialize hydrogen fuel-cell drivetrains like iX5 eDrive for scalable, zero-emission mobility.

✅ Fuel cells enable fast refueling and long range with water vapor only.

✅ Reduces reliance on lithium and cobalt via recyclable materials.

✅ Targets premium SUV iX5; limited pilots before broader rollout.

BMW is hanging in there with hydrogen, a stance mirrored in power companies' hydrogen outlook today. That’s what Oliver Zipse, the chairperson of BMW, reiterated during an interview last week in Goodwood, England. 

“After the electric car, which has been going on for about 10 years and scaling up rapidly, the next trend will be hydrogen,” he says. “When it’s more scalable, hydrogen will be the hippest thing to drive.”

BMW has dabbled with the idea of using hydrogen for power for years, even though it is obscure and niche compared to the current enthusiasm surrounding vehicles powered by electricity. In 2005, BMW built 100 “Hydrogen 7” vehicles that used the fuel to power their V12 engines. It unveiled the fuel cell iX5 Hydrogen concept car at the International Motor Show Germany in 2021. 

In August, the company started producing fuel-cell systems for a production version of its hydrogen-powered iX5 sport-utility vehicle. Zipse indicated it would be sold in the United States within the next five years, although in a follow-up phone call a spokesperson declined to confirm that point. Bloomberg previously reported that BMW will start delivering fewer than 100 of the iX5 hydrogen vehicles to select partners in Europe, the U.S., and Asia, where Asia leads on hydrogen fuel cells today, from the end of this year.

All told, BMW will eventually offer five different drivetrains to help diversify alternative-fuel options within the group, as hybrids gain renewed momentum in the U.S., Zipse says.

“To say in the U.K. about 2030 or the U.K. and in Europe in 2035, there’s only one drivetrain, that is a dangerous thing,” he says. “For the customers, for the industry, for employment, for the climate, from every angle you look at, that is a dangerous path to go to.” 

Zipse’s hydrogen dreams could even extend to the group’s crown jewel, Rolls-Royce, which BMW has owned since 1998. The “magic carpet ride” driving style that has become Rolls-Royce’s signature selling point is flexible enough to be powered by alternatives to electricity, says Rolls-Royce CEO Torsten Müller-Ötvös. 

“To house, let’s say, fuel cell batteries: Why not? I would not rule that out,” Müller-Ötvös told reporters during a roundtable conversation in Goodwood on the eve of the debut of the company’s first-ever electric vehicle, Spectre. “There is a belief in the group that this is maybe the long-term future.”

Such a vehicle would contain a hydrogen fuel-cell drivetrain combined with BMW’s electric “eDrive” system. It works by converting hydrogen into electricity to reach an electrical output of up to 125 kW/170 horsepower and total system output of nearly 375hp, with water vapor as the only emission, according to the brand.

Hydrogen’s big advantage over electric power, as EVs versus fuel cells debates note, is that it can supply fuel cells stored in carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic tanks. “There will [soon] be markets where you must drive emission-free, but you do not have access to public charging infrastructure,” Zipse says. “You could argue, well you also don’t have access to hydrogen infrastructure, but this is very simple to do: It’s a tank which you put in there like an old [gas] tank, and you recharge it every six months or 12 months.”

Fuel cells at BMW would also help reduce its dependency on raw materials like lithium and cobalt, because the hydrogen-based system uses recyclable components made of aluminum, steel, and platinum. 

Zipse’s continued commitment to prioritizing hydrogen has become an increasingly outlier position in the automotive world. In the last five years, electric-only vehicles have become the dominant alternative fuel — as the age of electric cars dawns ahead of schedule — if not yet on the road, where fewer than 3% of new cars have plugs, at least at car shows and new-car launches.

Rivals Mercedes-Benz and Audi scrapped their own plans to develop fuel cell vehicles and instead have poured tens of billions of dollars into developing pure-electric vehicle, including Daimler's electrification plan initiatives. Porsche went public to finance its own electric aspirations. 

BMW will make half of all new-car sales electric by 2030 across the group, with many expecting most drivers to go electric within a decade, which includes MINI and Rolls-Royce. 
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada Economic Crossroads highlights bank earnings trends, interest rates, loan delinquencies, EV tariffs on Chinese imports, domestic manufacturing, Algoma Steel decarbonization, sustainability, and housing market risks shaping growth, investment, consumer prices, and climate policy.

Key Points

An overview of how bank earnings, EV tariffs, and Algoma Steel's transition shape Canada's economy.

✅ Higher rates lift margins but raise delinquencies and housing risks

✅ EV tariffs aid domestic makers but pressure consumer prices

✅ Algoma invests to decarbonize, boosting efficiency and compliance

In a complex economic landscape, recent developments have brought attention to several pivotal issues affecting Canada's business sector. The Globe and Mail’s latest report delves into three major topics: the latest bank earnings, the implications of new tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), and Algoma Steel’s strategic maneuvers. These factors collectively paint a picture of the challenges and opportunities facing Canada's economy.

Bank Earnings Reflect Economic Uncertainty

The recent financial reports from major Canadian banks have revealed a mixed picture of the nation’s economic health. As the Globe and Mail reports, earnings results show robust performances in some areas while highlighting growing concerns in others. Banks have generally posted strong quarterly results, buoyed by higher interest rates which have improved their net interest margins. This uptick is largely attributed to the central bank's monetary policies aimed at combating inflation and stabilizing the economy.

However, the positive earnings are tempered by underlying economic uncertainties. Rising loan delinquencies and a slowing housing market are areas of concern. Increased interest rates, while beneficial for banks’ margins, have also led to higher borrowing costs for consumers and businesses. This dynamic has the potential to impact overall economic growth and consumer confidence.

Tariffs on Chinese EVs: A Strategic Shift

Another significant development is the imposition of new tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. This move is part of a broader strategy to protect domestic automotive industries and address trade imbalances, aligning with public support for tariffs in key sectors. The tariffs are expected to increase the cost of Chinese EVs in Canada, which could have several implications for the market.

On one hand, the tariffs might provide a temporary boost to Canadian and North American manufacturers by reducing competition from lower-priced Chinese imports. This protectionist measure could encourage investments in local production and innovation, mirroring tariff threats boosting support for energy projects in other sectors. However, the increased cost of Chinese EVs may also lead to higher prices for consumers, potentially slowing the adoption of electric vehicles—a critical goal in Canada’s climate strategy.

The tariffs come at a time when the Canadian government is keen on accelerating the transition to electric mobility to meet its environmental targets, even as a critical crunch in electrical supply raises questions about grid readiness. Balancing the protection of domestic industries with the broader goal of reducing emissions will be a significant challenge moving forward.

Algoma Steel’s Strategic Evolution

In the steel industry, Algoma Steel has been making headlines with its strategic initiatives aimed at transforming its operations, in a broader shift toward clean grids and industrial decarbonization. The Globe and Mail highlights Algoma Steel's efforts to modernize its production processes and shift towards more sustainable practices. This includes significant investments in technology and infrastructure to enhance production efficiency and reduce environmental impact.

Algoma's focus on reducing carbon emissions aligns with broader industry trends towards sustainability. The company’s efforts are part of a larger push within the steel sector to address climate change and meet regulatory requirements. As one of Canada’s leading steel producers, Algoma’s actions could set a precedent for the industry, showcasing how traditional manufacturing sectors can adapt to evolving environmental standards.

Implications and Future Outlook

The interplay of these developments reflects a period of significant transition for Canada's economy, shaped in part by U.S. policy where Biden is seen as better for Canada's energy sector by some analysts. For banks, the challenge will be to navigate the balance between profitability and potential risks from a changing economic environment. The new tariffs on Chinese EVs represent a strategic shift with mixed implications for the automotive market, potentially influencing both domestic production and consumer prices. Meanwhile, Algoma Steel’s push towards sustainability could serve as a model for other industries seeking to align with environmental goals.

As these issues unfold, stakeholders across sectors will need to stay informed and adaptable. For policymakers, the challenge will be to support domestic industries while fostering innovation and sustainability, including the dilemma over electricity rates and innovation they must weigh. For businesses, the focus will be on navigating financial pressures and leveraging opportunities for growth. Consumers, in turn, will face the impact of these developments in their daily lives, from the cost of borrowing to the price of electric vehicles.

In summary, Canada’s current economic landscape is characterized by a blend of financial resilience, strategic adjustments, and evolving industry practices, amid policy volatility such as a tariff threat delaying Quebec's green energy bill earlier this year. As the country navigates these crossroads, the outcomes of these developments will play a crucial role in shaping the future economic environment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Idaho Power Valmy Settlement outlines early closure of the North Valmy coal-fired plant in Nevada, accelerated depreciation recovery, a 1.17% base-rate increase, and impacts for customers, NV Energy co-ownership, and Idaho Public Utilities Commission review.

Key Points

A proposed agreement to close North Valmy early, recover costs via a 1.17% rate hike, and seek PUC approval.

✅ Unit 1 closes 2019; Unit 2 closes 2025 in Nevada.

✅ 1.17% base-rate hike; about $1.20 per 1,000 kWh monthly bill.

✅ Idaho PUC comment deadline May 25; NV Energy co-owner.

State regulators have set a May 25 deadline for public comment on a proposed settlement related to the early closure of a coal-fired plant co-owned by Idaho Power, even as some utilities plan to keep a U.S. coal plant running indefinitely in other jurisdictions.

The settlement calls for shuttering Unit 1 of the North Valmy Power Plant in Nevada in 2019, with Unit 2 closing in 2025, amid regional coal unit retirements debates. The units had been slated for closure in 2031 and 2035, respectively.

If approved by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, the settlement would increase base rates by approximately $13.3 million, or 1.17 percent, in order to allow the company to recover its investment in the plant on an accelerated basis.

That equates to an additional $1.20 on the monthly bill of the typical residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours of energy per month.

Idaho Power, which co-owns the plant with NV Energy, maintains that closing Valmy early rather than continuing to operate it until it is fully depreciated in 2035, will ultimately save customers $103 million in today's dollars.

The company said a significant decrease in market prices for electricity has made it uneconomic to operate the plant except during extremely cold or hot weather, when the demand for energy peaks, a trend underscored by transactions involving the San Juan Generating Station deal elsewhere. The company also said plant balances have increased by approximately $70 million since its last general rate case in 2011, due to routine maintenance and repairs, as well as investments required to meet environmental regulations.

The proposed settlement reflects a number of changes to Idaho Power's original proposal regarding Valmy, and comes in the wake of discussions with interested parties in February and April, against the backdrop of a broader energy debate over plant closures and reliability.

In its initial application, filed in October, Idaho Power proposed closing both units in 2025. The original proposal would have increased base rates by $28.5 million, or about 2.5 percent, in order to allow the company to recover its costs associated with the plant's accelerated depreciation, decommissioning and anticipated investments, with cautionary examples such as the Kemper power plant costs illustrating potential risks.

Concurrently, Idaho Power asked for commission approval to adjust depreciation rates for its other plants and equipment based on the result of a study it conducts every five years, as outlined in Case IPC-E-16-23. The adjustment would have led to a $6.7 million increase to base rates.

The two requests filed in October would have increased customer costs by a total of $35.2 million or 3.1 percent, leading to a $3.08 increase on the bills of the typical residential customer who uses 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month.

The proposed settlement submitted to the Commission on May 4 calls for $13,285,285 to be recovered from all customer classes through base rates until 2028, all related to the Valmy shutdown. That is an increase of 1.17 percent and would result in a $1.20 increase on the bills of the typical residential customer who uses 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News