Armenia and Russia form joint nuclear venture

Hydro One Leadership Shakeup unsettles investors as Ontario government ousts CEO and board, pressuring shares; analysts cite political and regulatory risk, stock volatility, trimmed price targets, and dividend stability at the regulated utility.

Key Points

An abrupt CEO exit and board overhaul at Hydro One, driving share declines and raising political and regulatory risk.

✅ Shares fall as CEO retires and board resigns under provincial pressure.

✅ Analysts cut price targets; warn of political, regulatory risks.

✅ New board to pick CEO; province consults on compensation.

Hydro One Ltd. shares slid Thursday with some analysts sounding warnings of greater uncertainty after the new Ontario government announced the retirement of the electrical utility's chief executive and the replacement of its board of directors.

 After sagging by almost eight per cent in early trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange, following news that Q2 profit plunged 23% amid weaker electricity revenue, shares of the company were later down four per cent, or 81 cents, at $19.36 as of 11:42 a.m. ET.

On Wednesday, after stock markets had closed for the day, Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced the immediate retirement of Hydro One CEO Mayo Schmidt. He leaves with a $400,000 payout in lieu of post-retirement benefits and allowances, Hydro One said.

Doug Ford's government forces out Hydro One '$6-million man'

During the recent provincial election campaign, Ford vowed to fire Schmidt, who earned $6.2 million last year and whose salary wouldn't be reduced despite calls to cut electricity costs.

Paul Dobson, Hydro One's chief financial officer, will serve as acting CEO until a new top executive is selected.

Ford also said the entire board of directors of the utility would resign. Hydro One said a new board — four members of which will be nominated by the province — will select the company's next CEO, and the province will be consulted on the next leader's compensation.

A new board is expected to be formed by mid-August.

The provincial government is the largest single investor in Hydro One, holding a 47 per cent stake. The company was partly privatized by the former Liberal government in 2015, while the NDP has proposed to make hydro public again in Ontario to change course.

Doug Ford promises to keep Pickering nuclear plant open until 2024

In response to the government's move to supplant the utility's board and CEO, some analysts cautioned investors about too many unknowns in the near-term outlook, citing raised political or regulatory risks.

Analyst Jeremy Rosenfield of iA Securities cut his rating on Hydro One shares to hold from buy, and reduced his 12-month price target for the stock to $24 from $26.

Rosenfield said the stock is still a defensive investment supported by stable earnings and cash flows, good earnings growth and healthy dividend.

However, he said in a research note that "the heightened potential for further political interference in the province's electricity market and regulated utility framework represent key risk factors that are likely to outweigh Hydro One's fundamentals over the near term."

Potential challenge to find new CEO

Laurentian Bank Securities analyst Mona Nazir said in a research note that the magnitude of change all at once was "surprising but not shocking."

She said the agreement that will see Hydro One consult with the provincial government on matters involving executive pay could have an impact on the hiring of a new CEO for the utility.

"Given the government's open and public criticism of the company and a potential ceiling on compensation, it may be challenging to attract top talent to the position," she wrote.

Laurentian cut its rating on the Hydro One to hold and reduced its price target to $21 from $24.

Analysts at CIBC World Markets said investors face an uncertain future, noting parallels with debates at Manitoba Hydro over political direction.

"In particular, we are are concerned about the government meddling in with [power] rates," wrote Robert Catellier and Archit Kshetrapal in a research note, adding they believe the new provincial government is aiming for a 12 per cent reduction in customers' power bills.

CIBC reduced its price target on Hydro One's shares to $20.50 from its previous target of $24.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Gulf Power renewable energy contract underscores a Florida PSC-approved power purchase from Bay County's municipal solid waste plant, delivering 13.65 MW at a fixed price, boosting fuel diversity, lowering landfill waste, and saving customers money.

Key Points

A fixed-price PPA for 13.65 MW from Bay County's waste-to-energy plant, approved by Florida PSC to cut costs.

✅ Fixed-price purchase; pay only for energy produced.

✅ 13.65 MW from Bay County waste-to-energy facility.

✅ Cuts landfill waste and natural gas dependency.

The Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) approved Tuesday a contract under which Gulf Power Company will purchase all the electricity generated by the Bay County Resource Recovery Facility, a municipal solid waste plant, similar to SaskPower-Manitoba Hydro deal structures seen elsewhere, over the next six years.

“Gulf’s renewable energy purchase promotes Florida’s fuel diversity, further reducing our dependency on natural gas,” PSC Chairperson Julie Brown said. “This renewable energy option also reduces landfill waste, saves customers money, and serves the public interest.”

The contract provides for Gulf to acquire the Panama City facility’s 13.65 megawatts of renewable generation for its customers beginning in July 2017. Gulf will pay a fixed price, aligned with approaches in Alberta's clean electricity RFP programs, and only pays for the energy produced. The contract is expected to save approximately $250,000 and provides security for customers, a contrast to overruns at the Kemper power plant project, because if the plant does not supply energy, Gulf does not have to provide payment.

This contract is the third renewable energy contract between Gulf and Bay County, at a time when the Southern California plant closures may be postponed, continuing agreements approved in 2008 and 2014. In making the decision, the PSC considered Gulf’s need for power and developments such as the Turkey Point license renewal process, as well as the contract’s cost-effectiveness, payment provisions, and performance guarantees, as required by rule.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

Duke Energy Net Metering Proposal updates rooftop solar compensation with time-of-use rates, lower grid credits, and a minimum charge, aligning payments with electricity demand in North Carolina pending regulators' approval.

Key Points

A plan to swap flat credits for time-of-use rates and a minimum charge for rooftop solar customers in North Carolina.

✅ Time-of-use credits vary by grid demand

✅ $10 minimum use charge plus $14 basic fee

✅ Aims to align solar payouts with actual electricity value

Duke Energy has proposed new rules for how owners of rooftop solar panels are paid for electricity they send to the electric grid. It could mean more complexity and lower payments, but the utility says rates would be fairer.

State legislators have called for changes in the payment rules — known as "net metering" policies that allow households to sell power back to energy firms.

Right now, solar panel owners who produce more electricity than they need get credits on their bills, equal to whatever they pay for electricity. Under the proposed changes, the credit would be lower and would vary according to electricity demand, said Duke spokesperson Randy Wheeless.

"So in a cold winter morning, like now, you would get more, but maybe in a mild spring day, you would get less," Wheeless said Tuesday. "So, it better reflects what the price of electricity is."

Besides setting rates by time of use, solar owners also would have to pay a minimum of $10 a month for electricity, even if they don't use any from the grid. That's on top of Duke's $14 basic charge. Duke said it needs the extra revenue to pay for grid infrastructure to serve solar customers.

The proposal is the result of an agreement between Duke and solar industry groups — the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association; the Southern Environmental Law Center, which represented Vote Solar and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy; solar panel maker Sunrun Inc.; and the Solar Energy Industries Association.

The deal is similar to one approved by regulators in South Carolina last year, while in Nova Scotia a solar charge was delayed after controversy.

Daniel Brookshire of the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association said he hopes the agreement will help the solar industry.

"We reached an agreement here that we think will provide certainty over the next decade, at least, for those interested in pursuing solar for their homes, and for our members who are solar installers," Brookshire said.

But other environmental and consumer groups oppose the changes, amid debates over who pays for grid upgrades elsewhere. Jim Warren with NC WARN said the rules would slow the expansion of rooftop solar in North Carolina.

"It would make it even harder for ordinary people to go solar," Warren said. "This would make it more complicated and more expensive, even for wealthier homeowners."

State regulators still must approve the proposal, even as courts weigh aspects of the electricity monopoly in related solar cases. If state regulators approve it, rates for new net metering customers would take effect Jan. 1, 2023.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

US Utilities Shift From Coal as natural gas stays cheap, renewables like wind and solar scale, Clean Power Plan uncertainty lingers, and investors, state policies, and emissions targets drive generation choices and accelerate retirements.

Key Points

A long-term shift by utilities from coal to cheap natural gas, expanding renewables, and lower-emission generation.

✅ Cheap natural gas undercuts coal on price and flexibility.

✅ Renewables costs falling; wind and solar add competitive capacity.

✅ State policies and investors sustain emissions reductions.

When President Donald Trump signed an executive order last week to sweep away Obama-era climate change regulations, he said it would end America's "war on coal", usher in a new era of energy production and put miners back to work.

But the biggest consumers of U.S. coal - power generating companies - remain unconvinced about efforts to replace Obama's power plant overhaul with a lighter-touch approach.

Reuters surveyed 32 utilities with operations in the 26 states that sued former President Barack Obama's administration to block its Clean Power Plan, the main target of Trump's executive order. The bulk of them have no plans to alter their multi-billion dollar, years-long shift away from coal, suggesting demand for the fuel will keep falling despite Trump's efforts.

The utilities gave many reasons, mainly economic: Natural gas - coal’s top competitor - is cheap and abundant; solar and wind power costs are falling; state environmental laws remain in place; and Trump's regulatory rollback may not survive legal challenges, as rushed pricing changes draw warnings from energy groups.

Meanwhile, big investors aligned with the global push to fight climate change – such as the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund – have been pressuring U.S. utilities in which they own stakes to cut coal use.

"I’m not going to build new coal plants in today’s environment," said Ben Fowke, CEO of Xcel Energy, which operates in eight states and uses coal for about 36 percent of its electricity production. "And if I’m not going to build new ones, eventually there won’t be any."

Of the 32 utilities contacted by Reuters, 20 said Trump's order would have no impact on their investment plans; five said they were reviewing the implications of the order; six gave no response. Just one said it would prolong the life of some of its older coal-fired power units.

North Dakota's Basin Electric Power Cooperative was the sole utility to identify an immediate positive impact of Trump's order on the outlook for coal.

"We're in the situation where the executive order takes a lot of pressure off the decisions we had to make in the near term, such as whether to retrofit and retire older coal plants," said Dale Niezwaag, a spokesman for Basin Electric. "But Trump can be a one-termer, so the reprieve out there is short."

Trump's executive order triggered a review aimed at killing the Clean Power Plan and paving the way for the EPA's Affordable Clean Energy rule to replace it, though litigation is ongoing. The Obama-era law would have required states, by 2030, to collectively cut carbon emissions from existing power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels. It was designed as a primary strategy in U.S. efforts to fight global climate change.

The U.S. coal industry, without increases in domestic demand, would need to rely on export markets for growth. Shipments of U.S. metallurgical coal, used in the production of steel, have recently shown up in China following a two-year hiatus - in part to offset banned shipments from North Korea and temporary delays from cyclone-hit Australian producers.

RETIRING AND RETROFITTING

Coal had been the primary fuel source for U.S. power plants for the last century, but its use has fallen more than a third since 2008 after advancements in drilling technology unlocked new reserves of natural gas.

Hundreds of aging coal-fired power plants have been retired or retrofitted. Huge coal mining companies like Peabody Energy Corp and Arch Coal fell into bankruptcy, and production last year hit its lowest point since 1978.

The slide appears likely to continue: U.S. power companies now expect to retire or convert more than 8,000 megawatts of coal-fired plants in 2017 after shutting almost 13,000 MW last year, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration and Thomson Reuters data.

Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, acknowledged Trump's efforts would not return the coal industry to its "glory days," but offered some hope.

"There may not be immediate plans for utilities to bring on more coal, but the future is always uncertain in this market," he said.

Many of the companies in the Reuters survey said they had been focused on reducing carbon emissions for a decade or more while tracking 2017 utility trends that reinforce long-term planning, and were hesitant to change direction based on shifting political winds in Washington D.C.

"Utility planning typically takes place over much longer periods than presidential terms of office," Berkshire Hathaway Inc-owned Pacificorp spokesman Tom Gauntt said.

Several utilities also cited falling costs for wind and solar power, which are now often as cheap as coal or natural gas, thanks in part to government subsidies for renewable energy and recent FERC decisions affecting the grid.

In the meantime, activist investors have increased pressure on U.S. utilities to shun coal.

In the last year, Norway's sovereign wealth fund, the world's largest, has excluded more than a dozen U.S. power companies - including Xcel, American Electric Power Co Inc and NRG Energy Inc - from its investments because of their reliance on coal-fired power.

Another eight companies, including Southern Co and NorthWestern Corp, are "under observation" by the fund.

Wyoming-based coal miner Cloud Peak Energy said it doesn't blame utilities for being lukewarm to Trump's order.

"For eight years, if you were a utility running coal, you got the hell kicked out of you," said Richard Reavey, a spokesman for the company. "Are you going to turn around tomorrow and say, 'Let's buy lots of coal plants'? Pretty unlikely."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Blackouts expose grid reliability risks as PG&E deenergizes lines during high winds. Mandated solar and wind displace dispatchable natural gas, straining ISO load balancing, transmission maintenance, and battery storage planning amid escalating wildfire liability.

Key Points

California grid shutoffs stem from wildfire risk, renewables, and deferred transmission maintenance under mandates.

✅ PG&E deenergizes lines to reduce wildfire ignition during high winds.

✅ Mandated solar and wind displace dispatchable gas, raising balancing costs.

✅ Storage, reliability pricing, and grid upgrades are needed to stabilize supply.

California is again facing widespread blackouts this season. Politicians are scrambling to assign blame to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) a heavily regulated utility that can only do what the politically appointed regulators say it can do. In recent years this has meant building a bunch of solar and wind projects, while decommissioning reliable sources of power and scrimping on power line maintenance and upgrades.

The blackouts are connected with the legal liability from old and improperly maintained power lines being blamed for sparking fires—in hopes that deenergizing the grid during high winds reduces the likelihood of fires. 

How did the land of Silicon Valley and Hollywood come to have developing world electricity?

California’s Democratic majority, from Gov. Gavin Newsom to the solidly progressive legislature, to the regulators they appoint, have demanded huge increases in renewable energy. Renewable electricity targets have been pushed up, and policymakers are weighing a revamp of electricity rates to clean the grid, with the state expected to reach a goal of 33% of its power from renewable sources, mostly solar and wind, by next year, and 60% of its electricity from renewables by 2030.

In 2018, 31% of the electricity Californians purchased at the retail level came from approved renewables. But when rooftop solar is added to the mix, about 34% of California’s electricity came from renewables in 2018. Solar photovoltaic (PV) systems installed “behind-the-meter” (BTM) displace utility-supplied generation, but still affect the grid at large, as electricity must be generated at the moment it is consumed. PV installations in California grew 20% from 2017 to 2018, benefiting from the state’s Self-Generation Incentive Program that offers hefty rebates through 2025, as well as a 30% federal tax credit.

Increasingly large amounts of periodic, renewable power comes at a price—the more there is, the more difficult it is to keep the power grid stable and energized. Since electricity must be consumed the instant it is generated, and because wind and solar produce what they will whenever they do, the rest of the grid’s power producers—mostly natural gas plants—have to make up any differences between supply and immediate demand. This load balancing is vital, because without it, the grid will crash and widespread blackouts will ensue.

California often produces a surplus of mandated solar and wind power, generated for 5 to 8 cents per kilowatt hour. This power displaces dispatchable power from natural gas, coal and nuclear plants, resulting in reliable power plants spending less time online and driving up electricity prices as the plants operate for fewer hours of the day. Subsidized and mandated solar power, along with a law passed in California in 2006 (SB 1638) that bans the renewal of coal-fired power contracts, has placed enormous economic pressure on the Western region’s coal power plants—among them, the nation’s largest, Navajo Generating Station. As these plants go off line, the Western power grid will become increasingly unstable. Eventually, the states that share their electric power in the Western Interconnect may have to act to either subsidize dispatchable power or place a value on reliability—something that was taken for granted in the growth of the America’s electrical system and its regulatory scheme.

California law regarding electricity explicitly states that “a violation of the Public Utilities Act is a crime” and that it is “…the intent of the Legislature to provide for the evolution of the ISO (California’s Independent System Operator—the entity that manages California’s grid) into a regional organization to promote the development of regional electricity transmission markets in the western states.” In other words, California expects to dictate how the Western grid operates.

One last note as to what drives much of California’s energy policy: politics. California State Senator Kevin de León (the author served with him in the State Assembly) drafted SB 350, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act. It became law in 2015. Sen. de León followed up with SB 100 in 2018, signed into law weeks before the 2018 election. SB 100 increased California’s renewable portfolio standard to 60% by 2030 and further requires all the state’s electricity to come from carbon-free sources by 2045, a capstone of the state’s climate policies that factor into the blackout debate.  

Sen. de León used his environmental credentials to burnish his run for the U.S. Senate against Sen. Dianne Feinstein, eventually capturing the endorsements of the California Democratic Party and billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, now running for president. Feinstein and de León advanced to the general in California’s jungle primary, where Feinstein won reelection 54.2% to 45.8%.

De León may have lost his race for the U.S. Senate, but his legacy will live on in increasingly unaffordable electricity and blackouts, not only in California, but in the rest of the Western United States—unless federal or state regulators begin to place a value on reliability. This could be done by requiring utility scale renewable power providers to guarantee dispatchable power, as policymakers try to avert a looming shortage of firm capacity, either through purchase agreements with thermal power plants or through the installation of giant and costly battery farms or other energy storage means.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News