Gas-fuelled power plant on agenda

Canadian Softwood Lumber Tariffs challenge British Columbia's forestry sector, strain U.S.-Canada trade, and risk redirecting critical minerals and energy resources, threatening North American supply chains, manufacturing, and energy security across integrated markets.

Key Points

Duties imposed by the U.S. on Canadian lumber, affecting BC forestry, trade flows, and North American energy security.

✅ U.S. duties strain BC forestry and cross-border supply chains

✅ Risks redirecting critical minerals and energy exports

✅ Tariff rollback could bolster North American energy security

British Columbia Premier David Eby has raised concerns that U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber are prompting the province to redirect its critical minerals and energy resources, while B.C. challenges Alberta's electricity export restrictions domestically, away from the United States. In a recent interview, Eby emphasized the broader implications of these tariffs, suggesting they could undermine North American energy security and put electricity exports at risk across the border.

Since 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce has imposed tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber imports, alleging that Canadian producers benefit from unfair subsidies. These duties have been a persistent source of tension between the two nations, coinciding with Canadian support for energy and mineral tariffs and significantly impacting British Columbia's forestry sector—a cornerstone of the province's economy.

Premier Eby highlighted that the financial strain imposed by these tariffs not only jeopardizes the Canadian forestry industry but also has unintended repercussions for the United States. He pointed out that the economic challenges faced by Canadian producers might lead them to seek alternative markets for their critical minerals and energy resources, as tariff threats boost support for Canadian energy projects domestically, thereby reducing the supply to the U.S. British Columbia is endowed with an abundance of critical minerals essential for various industries, including technology and defense.

The potential redirection of these resources could have significant consequences for American industries that depend on a stable and affordable supply of critical minerals and energy. Eby suggested that the tariffs might incentivize Canadian producers to explore other international markets, even as experts advise against cutting Quebec's energy exports amid the tariff dispute, diminishing the availability of these vital resources to the U.S.

In light of these concerns, Premier Eby has advocated for a reassessment of the tariffs, urging a more cooperative approach between Canada and the United States. He contends that eliminating the tariffs would be mutually beneficial, aligning with views that Biden is better for Canada's energy sector and cross-border collaboration, ensuring a consistent supply of critical resources and fostering economic growth in both countries.

The issue of U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber remains complex and contentious, with far-reaching implications for trade relations and resource distribution between the two nations. As discussions continue, stakeholders on both sides of the border are closely monitoring the situation, noting that Ford has threatened to cut U.S. electricity exports amid trade tensions, recognizing the importance of collaboration in addressing shared economic and security challenges.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

New York faces soaring energy bills as utilities seek record rate hikes, aging grid infrastructure demands upgrades, and federal renewable policies shift. Consumers struggle with affordability, late payments, and rising costs of delivery and energy supply across the state.

Why is New York Facing Soaring Energy Bills?

New York faces soaring energy bills because utilities are raising rates to cover the costs of grid upgrades, inflation, and policy-driven changes in energy supply.

✅ Utilities seek double-digit rate hikes across the state

✅ Aging infrastructure and storm repairs increase delivery costs

✅ Federal policies and gas dependence push energy prices higher

New Yorkers are bracing for another wave of energy bill increases as utilities seek record-high rate hikes and policy changes ripple through the state’s power system. Electric bills in New York are the highest they’ve been in over a decade, and more than a million households are now at least two months behind on payments, a sign of pandemic energy insecurity that continues to strain budgets, owing utilities nearly $2 billion.

Record numbers of households have had their electricity or gas shut off this year — more than 61,000 in May alone — despite pandemic shut-off suspensions that had offered temporary relief, the highest the Public Utility Law Project (PULP) has ever recorded. “This August was the group’s busiest month ever,” said Laurie Wheelock, PULP’s executive director, citing a surge in calls to its hotline. “The top concern on people’s minds: rate hikes.”

Utilities across the state are pushing for significant price increases, citing aging infrastructure, the need for climate adaptation, and higher operating costs, as California regulators face calls for action amid rising bills. “We used to see single-digit rate hikes and now we see double-digit rate hikes,” said Jessica Azulay, executive director of the Alliance for a Green Economy. “That’s a new normal that is unacceptable.”

Several utilities have requested delivery rate increases of 25 percent or more, with some proposals as high as 39 percent. Upstate utilities NYSEG and RG&E are seeking to raise electric and gas bills by about $33 a month, although regulators are unlikely to approve the full amount.

The companies argue the hikes are needed “to pay for rebuilding an aging grid and expanding its capacity to meet residents’ and businesses’ service demands,” including storm repairs. They also claim the plan would create more than 1,000 jobs.

James Denn, a spokesperson for the Public Service Commission (PSC), said much of the cost pressure stems from “inflation, higher interest rates, supply chain disruptions, the global push to upgrade electrical infrastructure, and, most recently, the rising risk and uncertainty from tariffs,” trends reflected in U.S. electricity price data over the past two years.

While some have blamed New York’s clean-energy transition, a PSC report found that state climate policies account for only 5 to 9.5 percent of the average household’s electric bill, or approximately $10 to $12 per month. The bulk of the increases still come from traditional spending on infrastructure, storm resilience, and system expansion.

On the supply side, costs are rising too. President Donald Trump’s recent policies have threatened renewable-energy investment nationwide, even as states’ renewable ambitions carry significant costs, potentially adding to New York’s woes. His July “megabill” phases out a 30 percent federal tax credit for solar and wind unless projects begin construction by mid-2026. Industry experts warn that the changes could make renewables “more expensive to build” and “increase reliance on gas.”

“It just means more expensive power,” said Marguerite Wells of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York.

The state estimates Trump’s policy shifts could cost New York $60 billion in lost renewable investment. With fewer clean-energy projects moving forward, gas — which already supplies roughly half of the state’s electricity — will remain the dominant source, tying energy prices to volatile global markets and the kinds of price drivers seen in California in recent years.

Governor Kathy Hochul has called affordability “our greatest short-term challenge,” while consumer advocates are demanding reforms to reduce utility profits and overhaul “rate design,” and to strengthen protections such as the emergency disconnection moratorium that applies during declared emergencies.

“There is definitely a groundswell of concern,” Wheelock said. “We go to meetings and we’re getting questions about rate design, like, ‘What is the revenue decoupling mechanism?’ Never had that question before.”

Related Articles

• USA Electricity 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

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Renewable Electricity Generation is accelerating the shift from fossil fuels, as wind, solar, and hydro boost the electric power sector, lowering emissions and overtaking nuclear while displacing coal and natural gas in the U.S. grid.

Key Points

Renewable electricity generation is power from non-fossil sources like wind, solar, and hydro to cut emissions.

✅ Driven by wind, solar, and hydro adoption

✅ Reduces fossil fuel dependence and emissions

✅ Increasing share in the electric power sector

The transition to electric vehicles is largely driven by a need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and reduce emissions associated with burning fossil fuels, while declining US electricity use also shapes demand trends in the power sector. In 2021, 40% of the electricity produced by the electric power sector was derived from non-fossil fuel sources.

Since 2007, the increase in non-fossil fuel sources has been largely driven by “Other Renewables” which is predominantly wind and solar. This has resulted in renewables (including hydroelectric) overtaking nuclear power’s share of electricity generation in 2021 for the first time since 1984. An increasing share of electricity generation from renewables has also led to a declining share of electricity from fossil fuel sources like coal, natural gas, and petroleum, with renewables poised to eclipse coal globally as deployment accelerates.

Includes net generation of electricity from the electric power sector only, and monthly totals can fluctuate, as seen when January power generation jumped on a year-over-year basis.

Net generation of electricity is gross generation less the electrical energy consumed at the generating station(s) for station service or auxiliaries, and the projected mix of sources is sensitive to policies and natural gas prices over time. Electricity for pumping at pumped-storage plants is considered electricity for station service and is deducted from gross generation.

“Natural Gas” includes blast furnace gas and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels, while in the UK wind generation exceeded coal for the first time in 2016.

“Other Renewables” includes wood, waste, geo-thermal, solar and wind resources among others.

“Other” category includes batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam, sulfur, miscellaneous technologies, and, beginning in 2001, non-renewable waste (municipal solid waste from non-biogenic sources, and tire-derived fuels), noting that trends vary by country, with UK low-carbon generation stalling in 2019.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

FERC Grid Resiliency Pricing Opposition underscores industry groups, RTOs, and ISOs rejecting DOE's NOPR, warning against out-of-market subsidies for coal and nuclear, favoring competitive markets, reliability, and true grid resilience.

Key Points

Coalition urging FERC to reject DOE's NOPR subsidies, protecting reliability and competitive power markets.

✅ Industry groups, RTOs, ISOs oppose DOE NOPR

✅ PJM reports sufficient reliability and resilience

✅ Reject out-of-market aid to coal, nuclear

A diverse group of a dozen energy industry associations representing oil, natural gas, wind, solar, efficiency, and other energy technologies today submitted reply comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) continuing their opposition to the Department of Energy's (DOE) proposed rulemaking on grid resiliency pricing and electricity pricing changes within competitive markets, in the next step in this FERC proceeding.

Action by FERC, as lawmakers urge movement on aggregated DERs to modernize markets, is expected by December 11.

In these comments, this broad group of energy industry associations notes that most of the comments submitted initially by an unprecedented volume of filers, including grid operators whose markets would be impacted by the proposed rule, urged FERC not to adopt DOE'sproposed rule to provide out-of-market financial support to uneconomic coal and nuclear power plants in the wholesale electricity markets overseen by FERC.

Just a small set of interests - those that would benefit financially from discriminatory pricing that favors coal and nuclear plants - argued in favor of the rule put forward by DOE in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or NOPR, as did coal and business interests in related regulatory debates. But even those interests - termed 'NOPR Beneficiaries' by the energy associations - failed to provide adequate justification for FERC to approve the rule, and their specific alternative proposals for implementing the bailout of these plants were just as flawed as the DOE plan, according to the energy industry associations.

'The joint comments filed today with partners across the energy spectrum reflect the overwhelming majority view that this proposed rulemaking by FERC is unprecedented and unwarranted, said Todd Foley, Senior Vice President, Policy & Government Affairs, American Council on Renewable Energy.

We're hopeful that FERC will rule against an anti-competitive distortion of the electricity marketplace and avoid new unnecessary initiatives that increase power prices for American consumers and businesses.'

In the new reply comments submitted in response to the initial comments filed by hundreds of stakeholders on or before October 23 - the energy industry associations made the following points: Despite hundreds of comments filed, no new information was brought forth to validate the assertion - by DOE or the NOPR Beneficiaries - that an emergency exists that requires accelerated action to prop up certain power plants that are failing in competitive electricity markets: 'The record in this proceeding, including the initial comments, does not support the discriminatory payments proposed' by DOE, state the industry groups.

Nearly all of the initial comments filed in the matter take issue with the DOE NOPR and its claim of imminent threats to the reliability and resilience of the electric power system, despite reports of coal and nuclear disruptions cited by some advocates: 'Of the hundreds of comments filed in response to the DOE NOPR, only a handful purported to provide substantive evidence in support of the proposal. In contrast, an overwhelming majority of initial comments agree that the DOE NOPR fails to substantiate its assertions of an immediate reliability or resiliency need related to the retirement of merchant coal-fired and nuclear generation.'

Grid operators filed comments refuting claims that the potential retirement of coal and nuclear plants which could not compete for economically present immediate or near-term challenges to grid management, even as a coal CEO criticism targeted federal decisions: 'Even the RTOs and ISOs themselves filed comments opposing the DOE NOPR, noting that the proposed cost-of-service payments to preferred generation would disrupt the competitive markets and are neither warranted nor justified.... Most notably, this includes PJM Interconnection, ... the RTO in which most of the units potentially eligible for payments under the DOE NOPR are located. PJM states that its region 'unquestionably is reliable, and its competitive markets have for years secured commitments from capacity resources that well exceed the target reserve margin established to meet [North American Electric Reliability Corp.] requirements.' And PJM analysis has confirmed that the region's generation portfolio is not only reliable, but also resilient.'

The need for NOPR Beneficiaries to offer alternative proposals reflects the weakness of DOE'srule as drafted, but their options for propping up uneconomic power plants are no better, practically or legally: 'Plans put forward by supporters of the power plant bailout 'acknowledge, at least implicitly, that the preferential payment structure proposed in the DOE NOPR is unclear, unworkable, or both. However, the alternatives offered by the NOPR Beneficiaries, are equally flawed both substantively and procedurally, extending well beyond the scope of the DOE NOPR.'

Citing one example, the energy groups note that the detailed plan put forward by utility FirstEnergy Service Co. would provide preferential payments far more costly than those now provided to individual power plants needed for immediate reasons (and given a 'reliability must run' contract, or RMR): 'Compensation provided under [FirstEnergy's proposal] would be significantly expanded beyond RMR precedent, going so far as to include bailing [a qualifying] unit out of debt based on an unsupported assertion that revenues are needed to ensure long-term operation.'

Calling the action FERC would be required to take in adopting the DOE proposal 'unprecedented,' the energy industry associations reiterate their opposition: 'While the undersigned support the goals of a reliable and resilient grid, adoption of ill-considered discriminatory payments contemplated in the DOE NOPR is not supportable - or even appropriate - from a legal or policy perspective.

About ACORE

The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) is a national non-profit organization leading the transition to a renewable energy economy. With hundreds of member companies from across the spectrum of renewable energy technologies, consumers and investors, ACORE is uniquely positioned to promote the policies and financial structures essential to growth in the renewable energy sector. Our annual forums in Washington, D.C., New York and San Franciscoset the industry standard in providing important venues for key leaders to meet, discuss recent developments, and hear the latest from senior government officials and seasoned experts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News