Nigeria may work with Cameroon on hydroelectric dam

Nova Scotia Cap-and-Trade Program joins Western Climate Initiative to leverage emissions trading IT systems, track allowances, and manage compliance, while setting in-province caps, carbon pricing signals, and third-party verified reporting for industrial and fuel suppliers.

Key Points

A provincial emissions trading system using WCI services to cap GHGs, track allowances, and enforce verified compliance.

✅ Uses WCI IT system to manage allowances and registry

✅ Initial trading limited to in-province participants

✅ Third-party verification and annual reporting deadlines

Nova Scotia is yet to set targets for its new cap and trade regime to reduce greenhouse gases, but the province announced Monday that it has joined the Western Climate Initiative Inc. -- a non-profit corporation formed to provide administrative and technical services to states and provinces with emissions trading programs.

Environment Minister Iain Rankin said joining the initiative would allow the province to use its IT system to manage and track its new cap and trade program.

Rankin said the province can join without trading greenhouse gas emission allowances with other jurisdictions -- California, Quebec, and Ontario are currently linked through the program, with Hydro-Québec's U.S. sales highlighting cross-border dynamics. Nova Scotia currently has no plans to trade outside the province as it works on emissions caps Rankin said will be ready sometime in June.

#google#

Nova Scotia is yet to set targets for its new cap and trade regime to reduce greenhouse gases, but the province announced Monday that it has joined the Western Climate Initiative Inc. -- a non-profit corporation formed to provide administrative and technical services to states and provinces with emissions trading programs.

Environment Minister Iain Rankin said joining the initiative would allow the province to use its IT system to manage and track its new cap and trade program.

Rankin said the province can join without trading greenhouse gas emission allowances with other jurisdictions -- California, Quebec, and Ontario are currently linked through the program. Nova Scotia currently has no plans to trade outside the province as it works on emissions caps Rankin said will be ready sometime in June.

"By keeping our system internal it ensures that our greenhouse gas reductions are happening within our province," said Rankin. "But we do have that opportunity (to join) and if there are new entrants or we need more access to credits then that may shift our strategy."

The use of the system will cost Nova Scotia about US$314,000 for 2018-19, with an annual cost in subsequent years of about US$228,000 or more, if the province requests modifications.

"If we were to do something like that internally we would have to build a full database and hire more people, so this was an obvious choice for us," said Rankin.

Nova Scotia has already met the national reduction target of 30 per cent below 2005 levels and says it's on track to have 40 per cent of electricity generation from renewables by 2020, underscoring how cleaning up Canada's electricity supports climate pledges.

Stephen Thomas, energy campaign coordinator for the Ecology Action Centre, called the province's move an "important small step," stressing the importance of using the same administrative rules as the other jurisdictions involved.

But Thomas said Nova Scotia should go further and trade emissions with California, Quebec, and Ontario, and also put a price on carbon by auctioning credits as they do.

Thomas said Nova Scotia's system stands to be volatile because of the smaller number of participants -- about 20 including Nova Scotia Power, Northern Pulp, Lafarge, and large oil and gasoline companies such as ExxonMobil, Imperial and Irving.

"It's very likely to favour Nova Scotia Power as the largest single emitter with the most credits to sell here, and that would change if we had a linked system, at a time when Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA," Thomas said.

He said it's important to have a linked system and a regional approach in Atlantic Canada, which has more emissions per person and more emissions per GDP than places like Ontario, Quebec and California, and where policies like Newfoundland's rate reduction plan can influence electricity strategy.

"Reducing emissions, because we are so emissions-intensive here, is a little bit cheaper," said Thomas. "So it's possible that Ontario, Quebec and California could pay Nova Scotia to reduce its emissions."

Under its program, Nova Scotia requires industrial facilities generating 50,000 tonnes or more of greenhouse gas emissions per year to report emissions.

Regulations also cover petroleum product suppliers that import or produce 200 litres of fuel or more per year for consumption and natural gas distributors whose products produce at least 10,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year.

Companies were to have reported to the Environment Department by May 1 but Rankin said the deadline has been pushed back to June 1, a deadline that was to be followed in subsequent years in any event. Reports must be verified by a third party by Sept. 1 every year.

The Liberal government passed enabling legislation for cap and trade last fall.

As for the upcoming emissions caps, Rankin isn't tipping the province's hand yet, even as B.C.'s 2050 targets face a shortfall in some forecasts.

"Those caps will recognize the investments that have already been made and therefore will be the most cost-effective program that we can put together to meet the federal requirement," he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant Mines reported by IAEA at the Russian-occupied site: anti-personnel devices in a buffer zone, restricted areas; access limits to reactor rooftops and turbine halls heighten nuclear safety and security concerns in Ukraine.

Key Points

IAEA reports anti-personnel mines at Russian-held Zaporizhzhia, raising nuclear safety risks in buffer zones.

✅ IAEA observes mines in buffer zone at occupied site

✅ Restricted areas; no roof or turbine hall access granted

✅ Safety systems unaffected, but staff under pressure

The United Nations atomic watchdog said it saw anti-personnel mines at the site of Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant which is occupied by Russian forces.

Europe's largest nuclear facility fell to Russian forces shortly after the invasion of Ukraine in February last year, as Moscow later sought to build power lines to reactivate it amid ongoing control of the area. Kyiv and Moscow have since accused each other of planning an incident at the site.

On July 23 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) experts "saw some mines located in a buffer zone between the site's internal and external perimeter barriers," agency chief Rafael Grossi said in a statement on Monday.

The statement did not say how many mines the team had seen.

The devices were in "restricted areas" that operating plant personnel cannot access, Mr Grossi said, adding the IAEA's initial assessment was that any detonation "should not affect the site's nuclear safety and security systems".

Laying explosives at the site was "inconsistent with the IAEA safety standards and nuclear security guidance" and, amid controversial proposals on Ukraine's nuclear plants that have circulated internationally, created additional psychological pressure on staff, he added.

Ukrainians in Nikopol are out of water and within Russia's firing line. But Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant could pose the biggest threat, even as Ukraine has resumed electricity exports to regional grids.

Last week the IAEA said its experts had carried out inspections at the plant, without "observing" the presence of any mines, although they had not been given access to the rooftops of the reactor buildings, while a possible agreement to curb attacks on plants was being discussed.

The IAEA had still not been given access to the roofs of the reactor buildings and their turbine halls, its latest statement said, even as a proposal to control Ukraine's nuclear plants drew scrutiny.

After falling into Russian hands, Europe's biggest power plant was targeted by gunfire and has been severed from the grid several times, raising nuclear risk warnings from the IAEA and others.

The six reactor units, which before the war produced around a fifth of Ukraine's electricity, have been shut down for months, prompting interest in wind power development as a harder-to-disrupt source.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Smart EV Charging orchestrates vehicle-to-grid (V2G), demand response, and fast charging to balance the power grid, integrating renewables, electrolyzers for hydrogen, and megawatt chargers for fleets with advanced control and co-optimization.

Key Points

Smart EV charging coordinates EV load to stabilize the grid, cut peaks, and integrate renewable energy efficiently.

✅ Reduces peak demand via coordinated, flexible load control

✅ Enables V2G services with renewables and battery storage

✅ Supports megawatt fast charging for heavy-duty fleets

As electric vehicle (EV) sales continue to rev up in the United States, the power grid is in parallel contending with the greatest transformation in its 100-year history: the large-scale integration of renewable energy and power electronic devices. The expected expansion of EVs will shift those challenges into high gear, causing cities to face gigawatt-growth in electricity demand, as analyses of EV grid impacts indicate, and higher amounts of variable energy.

Coordinating large numbers of EVs with the power system presents a highly complex challenge. EVs introduce variable electrical loads that are highly dependent on customer behavior. Electrified transportation involves co-optimization with other energy systems, like natural gas and bulk battery storage, including mobile energy storage flexibility for new operational options. It could involve fleets of automated ride-hailing EVs and lead to hybrid-energy truck stops that provide hydrogen and fast-charging to heavy-duty vehicles.

Those changes will all test the limits of grid integration, but the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) sees opportunity at the intersection of energy systems and transportation. With powerful resources for simulating and evaluating complex systems, several NREL projects are determining the coordination required for fast charging, balancing electrical supply and demand, and efficient use of all energy assets.

Smart and Not-So-Smart Control
To appreciate the value of coordinated EV charging, it is helpful to imagine the opposite scenario.

"Our first question is how much benefit or burden the super simple, uncoordinated approach to electric vehicle charging offers the grid," said Andrew Meintz, the researcher leading NREL's Electric Vehicle Grid Integration team, as well as the RECHARGE project for smart EV charging. "Then we compare that to the 'whiz-bang,' everything-is-connected approach. We want to know the difference in value."

In the "super simple" approach, Meintz explained that battery-powered electric vehicles grow in market share, exemplified by mass-market EVs, without any evolution in vehicle charging coordination. Picture every employee at your workplace driving home at 5 p.m. and charging their vehicle. That is the grid's equivalent of going 0 to 100 mph, and if it does not wreck the system, it is at least very expensive. According to NREL's Electrification Futures Study, a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of widespread electrification across all U.S. economic sectors, in 2050 EVs could contribute to a 33% increase in energy use during peak electrical demand, underscoring state grid challenges that make these intervals costly when energy reserves are procured. In duck curve parlance, EVs will further strain the duck's neck.

The Optimization and Control Lab's Electric Vehicle Grid Integration bays allow researchers to determine how advanced high power chargers can be added safely and effectively to the grid, with the potential to explore how to combine buildings and EV charging. Credit: Dennis Schroeder, NREL
Meintz's "whiz-bang" approach instead imagines EV control strategies that are deliberate and serve to smooth, rather than intensify, the upcoming demand for electricity. It means managing both when and where vehicles charge to create flexible load on the grid.

At NREL, smart strategies to dispatch vehicles for optimal charging are being developed for both the grid edge, where consumers and energy users connect to the grid, as in RECHARGEPDF, and the entire distribution system, as in the GEMINI-XFC projectPDF. Both projects, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Vehicle Technologies Office, lean on advanced capabilities at NREL's Energy Systems Integration Facility to simulate future energy systems.

At the grid edge, EVs can be co-optimized with distributed energy resources—small-scale generation or storage technologies—the subject of a partnership with Eaton that brought industry perspectives to bear on coordinated management of EV fleets.

At the larger-system level, the GEMINI-XFC project has extended EV optimization scenarios to the city scale—the San Francisco Bay Area, to be specific.

"GEMINI-XFC involves the highest-ever-fidelity modeling of transportation and the grid," said NREL Research Manager of Grid-Connected Energy Systems Bryan Palmintier.

"We're combining future transportation scenarios with a large metro area co-simulationPDF—millions of simulated customers and a realistic distribution system model—to find the best approaches to vehicles helping the grid."

GEMINI-XFC and RECHARGE can foresee future electrification scenarios and then insert controls that reduce grid congestion or offset peak demand, for example. Charging EVs involves a sort of shell game, where loads are continually moved among charging stations to accommodate grid demand.

But for heavy-duty vehicles, the load is harder to hide. Electrified truck fleets will hit the road soon, creating power needs for electric truck fleets that translate to megawatts of localized demand. No amount of rerouting can avoid the requirements of charging heavy-duty vehicles or other instances of extreme fast-charging (XFC). To address this challenge, NREL is working with industry and other national laboratories to study and demonstrate the technological buildout necessary to achieve 1+ MW charging stationsPDF that are capable of fast charging at very high energy levels for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.

To reach such a scale, NREL is also considering new power conversion hardware based on advanced materials like wide-bandgap semiconductors, as well as new controllers and algorithms that are uniquely suited for fleets of charge-hungry vehicles. The challenge to integrate 1+ MW charging is also pushing NREL research to higher power: Upcoming capabilities will look at many-megawatt systems that tie in the support of other energy sectors.

Renewable In-Roads for Hydrogen

At NREL, the drive toward larger charging demands is being met with larger research capabilities. The announcement of ARIES opens the door to energy systems integration research at a scale 10-times greater than current capabilities: 20 MW, up from 2 MW. Critically, it presents an opportunity to understand how mobility with high energy demands can be co-optimized with other utility-scale assets to benefit grid stability.

"If you've got a grid humming along with a steady load, then a truck requires 500 kW or more of power, it could create a large disruption for the grid," said Keith Wipke, the laboratory program manager for fuel cells and hydrogen technologies at NREL.

Such a high power demand could be partially served by battery storage systems. Or it could be hidden entirely with hydrogen production. Wipke's program, with support from the DOE's Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office, has been performing studies into how electrolyzers—devices that use electricity to break water into hydrogen and oxygen—could offset the grid impacts of XFC. These efforts are also closely aligned with DOE's H2@Scale vision for affordable and effective hydrogen use across multiple sectors, including heavy-duty transportation, power generation, and metals manufacturing, among others.

"We're simulating electrolyzers that can match the charging load of heavy-duty battery electric vehicles. When fast charging begins, the electrolyzers are ramped down. When fast charging ends, the electrolyzers are ramped back up," Wipke said. "If done smoothly, the utility doesn't even know it's happening."

NREL Researchers Rishabh Jain, Kazunori Nagasawa, and Jen Kurtz are working on how grid integration of electrolyzers—devices that use electricity to break water into hydrogen and oxygen—could offset the grid impacts of extreme fast-charging. Credit: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
As electrolyzers harness the cheap electrons from off-demand periods, a significant amount of hydrogen can be produced on site. That creates a natural energy pathway from discount electricity into a fuel. It is no wonder, then, that several well-known transportation and fuel companies have recently initiated a multimillion-dollar partnership with NREL to advance heavy-duty hydrogen vehicle technologies.

"The logistics of expanding electric charging infrastructure from 50 kW for a single demonstration battery electric truck to 5,000 kW for a fleet of 100 could present challenges," Wipke said. "Hydrogen scales very nicely; you're basically bringing hydrogen to a fueling station or producing it on site, but either way the hydrogen fueling events are decoupled in time from hydrogen production, providing benefits to the grid."

The long driving range and fast refuel times—including a DOE target of achieving 10-minutes refuel for a truck—have already made hydrogen the standout solution for applications in warehouse forklifts. Further, NREL is finding that distributed electrolyzers can simultaneously produce hydrogen and improve voltage conditions, which can add much-needed stability to a grid that is accommodating more energy from variable resources.

Those examples that co-optimize mobility with the grid, using diverse technologies, are encouraging NREL and its partners to pursue a new scale of systems integration. Several forward-thinking projects are reimagining urban mobility as a mix of energy solutions that integrate the relative strengths of transportation technologies, which complement each other to fill important gaps in grid reliability.

The Future of Urban Mobility
What will electrified transportation look like at high penetrations? A few NREL projects offer some perspective. Among the most experimental, NREL is helping the city of Denver develop a smart community, integrated with electrified mobility and featuring automated charging and vehicle dispatch.

On another path to advanced mobility, Los Angeles has embarked on a plan to modernize its electricity system infrastructure, reflecting California EV grid stability goals—aiming for a 100% renewable energy supply by 2045, along with aggressive electrification targets for buildings and vehicles. Through the Los Angeles 100% Renewable Energy Study, the city is currently working with NREL to assess the full-scale impacts of the transition in a detailed analysis that integrates diverse capabilities across the laboratory.

The transition would include the Port of Long Beach, the busiest container port in the United States.

At the port, NREL is applying the same sort of scenario forecasting and controls evaluation as other projects, in order to find the optimal mix of technologies that can be integrated for both grid stability and a reliable quality of service: a mix of hydrogen fuel-cell and battery EVs, battery storage systems, on-site renewable generation, and extreme coordination among everything.

"Hydrogen at ports makes sense for the same reason as trucks: Marine applications have big power and energy demands," Wipke said. "But it's really the synergies between diverse technologies—the existing infrastructure for EVs and the flexibility of bulk battery systems—that will truly make the transition to high renewable energy possible."

Like the Port of Long Beach, transportation hubs across the nation are adapting to a complex environment of new mobility solutions. Airports and public transit stations involve the movement of passengers, goods, and services at a volume exceeding anywhere else. With the transition to digitally connected electric mobility changing how airports plan for the future, NREL projects such as Athena are using the power of high-performance computing to demonstrate how these hubs can maximize the value of passenger and freight mobility per unit of energy, time, and/or cost.

The growth in complexity for transportation hubs has just begun, however. Looking ahead, fleets of ride-sharing EVs, automated vehicles, and automated ride-sharing EV fleets could present the largest effort to manage mobility yet.

A Self-Driving Power Grid
To understand the full impact of future mobility-service providers, NREL developed the HIVE (Highly Integrated Vehicle Ecosystem) simulation framework. HIVE combines factors related to serving mobility needs and grid operations—such as a customer's willingness to carpool or delay travel, and potentially time-variable costs of recharging—and simulates the outcome in an integrated environment.

"Our question is, how do you optimize the management of a fleet whose primary purpose is to provide rides and improve that fleet's dispatch and charging?" said Eric Wood, an NREL vehicle systems engineer.

HIVE was developed as part of NREL's Autonomous Energy Systems research to optimize the control of automated vehicle fleets. That is, optimized routing and dispatch of automated electric vehicles.

The project imagines how price signals could influence dispatch algorithms. Consider one customer booking a commute through a ride-hailing app. Out of the fleet of vehicles nearby—variously charged and continually changing locations—which one should pick up the customer?

Now consider the movements of thousands of passengers in a city and thousands of vehicles providing transportation services. Among the number of agents, the moment-to-moment change in energy supply and demand, and the broad diversity in vendor technologies, "we're playing with a lot of parameters," Wood said.

But cutting through all the complexity, and in the midst of massive simulations, the end goal for vehicle-to-grid integration is consistent:

"The motivation for our work is that there are forecasts for significant load on the grid from the electrification of transportation," Wood said. "We want to ensure that this load is safely and effectively integrated, while meeting the expectations and needs of passengers."

The Port of Long Beach uses a mix of hydrogen fuel-cell and battery EVs, battery storage systems, on-site renewable generation, and extreme coordination among everything. Credit: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
True Replacement without Caveats

Electric vehicles are not necessarily helpful to the grid, but they can be. As EVs become established in the transportation sector, NREL is studying how to even out any bumps that electrified mobility could cause on the grid and advance any benefits to commuters or industry.

"It all comes down to load flexibility," Meintz said. "We're trying to decide how to optimally dispatch vehicle charging to meet quality-of-service considerations, while also minimizing charging costs."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario Electricity Policy debates rates, subsidies, renewables, nuclear baseload, and Quebec hydro imports, highlighting grid transmission limits, community consultation, conservation, and the province's energy mix after cancelled wind projects and rising costs to taxpayers.

Key Points

Ontario Electricity Policy guides rates, generation, grid planning, subsidies and imports for reliable, low-cost power.

✅ Focuses on rates, subsidies, and consumer affordability

✅ Balances nuclear baseload, renewables, and Quebec hydro imports

✅ Emphasizes grid transmission, consultation, and conservation

When Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals went down to defeat at the hands of Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservatives, Ontario electricity had a lot to do with it. That was in 2018. Now, two years later, Ford’s government has electricity issues of its own, including a new stance on wind power that continues to draw scrutiny.

Electricity is politically fraught in Ontario. It’s among the most expensive in Canada. And it has been mismanaged at least as far back as nuclear energy cost overruns starting in the 1980s.

From the start Wynne’s government was tainted by the gas plant scandal of her predecessor Dalton McGuinty and then she created her own with the botched roll-out of her green energy plan. And that helped Ford get elected promising to lower electricity prices. But, rates haven’t gone down under Ford while the cost to the government coffers for subsidizing them have soared - now costing $5.6 billion a year.

Meanwhile, Ford’s government has spent at least $230 million to tear up green energy contracts signed by the former Liberal government, including two wind-farm projects that were already mid-construction.

Lessons learned?
In the final part of a three-part series, the six candidates vying to become the next leader of the Ontario Liberals discuss the province's electricity system, including the lessons learned from the prior Liberal government's botched attempts to fix it that led to widespread local opposition to a string of wind power projects, and whether they'd agree to import more hydroelectricity from Quebec.

“We had the right idea but didn’t stick the landing,” said Steven Del Duca, a member of the former Wynne government who lost his Vaughan-area seat in 2018, referring to its green-energy plan. “We need to make sure that we work more collaboratively with local communities to gain the buy-in needed to be successful in this regard.”

“Consultation and listening is key,” agreed Mitzie Hunter, who was education minister under Kathleen Wynne and in 2018 retained her seat in the legislature representing Scarborough-Guildwood. “We must seek input from community members about investments locally,” she said. “Inviting experts in to advise on major policy is also important to make evidence-based decisions."

Michael Coteau, MPP for Don Valley East and the third leadership candidate who was a member of the former government, called for “a new relationship of respect and collaboration with municipalities.”

He said there is an “important balance to be achieved between pursuing province wide objectives for green-energy initiatives and recognizing and reflecting unique local conditions and circumstances.”

Kate Graham, who has worked in municipal public service and has not held a provincial public office, said that experts and local communities are best placed to shape decisions in the sector.

In the final part of a three-part series, Ontario's Liberal leadership contenders discuss electricity, lessons learned from the bungled rollout of previous Liberal green policy, and whether to lean more on Quebec's hydroelectricity.
“What's gotten Ontario in trouble in the past is when Queen's Park politicians are the ones micromanaging the electricity file,” she said.

“Community consultation is vitally important to the long-term success of infrastructure projects,” said Alvin Tedjo, a former policy adviser to Liberal ministers Brad Duguid and Glen Murray.

“Community voices must be heard and listened to when large-scale energy programs are going to be implemented,” agreed Brenda Hollingsworth, a personal injury lawyer making her first foray into politics.

Of the six candidates, only Coteau went beyond reflection to suggest a path forward, saying he would review the distribution of responsibilities between the province and municipalities, with the aim of empowering cities and towns.

Turn back to Quebec?
Ford’s government has also turned away from a deal signed in 2016 to import hydroelectricity from Quebec.

Graham and Hunter both said they would consider increasing such imports. Hunter noted that the deal, which would displace domestic natural gas production, will lower the cost of electricity paid by Ontario ratepayers by a net total of $38 million from 2017 to 2023, according to the province’s fiscal watchdog.

“I am open to working with our neighbouring province,” Hunter said. “This is especially important as we seek to bring electricity to remote northern, on-reserve Indigenous communities.”

Tedjo said he has no issues with importing clean energy as long as it’s at a fair price.

Hollingsworth and Coteau both said they would withhold judgment until they could see the province’s capacity status in 2022.

“In evaluating the case for increasing importation of water power from Quebec, we must realistically assess the limitations of the existing transmission system and the cost and time required to scale up transmission infrastructure, among other factors,” Coteau said.

Del Duca also took a wait-and-see approach. “This will depend on our energy needs and energy mix,” he said. “I want to see our energy needs go down; we need more efficiency and better conservation to make that happen.”

What's the right energy mix?
Nuclear energy currently accounts for about a third of Ontario’s energy-producing capacity, even as Canada explores zero-emissions electricity by 2035 pathways. But it actually supplies about 60 percent of Ontario’s electricity. That is because nuclear reactors are always on, producing so-called baseload power.

Hydroelectricity provides another 25 percent of supply, while oil and natural gas contribute 6 per cent and wind adds 7 percent. Both solar and biofuels account for less than one percent of Ontario’s energy supply. However, a much larger amount of solar is not counted in this tally, as it is used at or near the sites where it is generated, and never enters the transmission system.

Asked for their views on how large a role various sources of power should play in Ontario’s electricity mix in the future, the candidates largely backed the idea of renewable energy, but offered little specifics.

Graham repeated her statement that experts and communities should drive that conversation. Tedjo said all non-polluting technologies should play a role in Ontario’s energy mix, as provinces like Alberta demonstrate parallel growth in green energy and fossil fuels. Coteau said we need a mix of renewable-energy sources, without offering specifics.

“We also need to pursue carbon capture and sequestration, working in particular with our farming communities,” he added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California Managed Decline of Fossil Fuels aligns oil phaseout with carbon neutrality, leveraging ZEV adoption, solar and wind growth, severance taxes, drilling setbacks, fracking oversight, CARB rules, and CalGEM regulation to deliver a just transition.

Key Points

California's strategy to phase out oil and gas while meeting carbon-neutral goals through policy, regulation, and equity.

✅ Severance taxes fund clean energy and workforce transition.

✅ Setbacks restrict drilling near schools, homes, and hospitals.

✅ CARB and CalGEM tighten fracking oversight and ZEV targets.

California’s energy past is on a collision course with its future. Think of major oil-producing U.S. states, and Texas, Alaska or North Dakota probably come to mind. Although its position relative to other states has been falling for 20 years, California remains the seventh-largest oil-producing state, with 162 million barrels of crude coming up in 2018, translating to tax revenue and jobs.

At the same time, California leads the nation in solar rooftops and electric vehicles on the road by a wide margin and ranking fifth in installed wind capacity. Clean energy is the state’s future, and the state is increasingly exporting its energy policies across the West, influencing regional markets. By law, California must have 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045, and an executive order signed by former Governor Jerry Brown calls for economywide carbon-neutrality by the same year.

So how can the state reconcile its divergent energy path? How should clean-energy-minded lawmakers wind down California’s oil and gas sector in a way that aligns with the state’s long-term climate targets while providing a just transition for the industry’s workforce?

Any efforts to reduce fossil fuel supply must run parallel to aggressive demand-reduction measures such as California’s push to have 5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2030, said Ethan Elkind, director of Berkeley Law's climate program, especially amid debates over keeping the lights on without fossil fuels in the near term. After all, if oil demand in California remains strong, crude from outside the state will simply fill the void.

“If we don’t stop using it, then that supply is going to get here, even if it’s not produced in-state,” Elkind said in an interview.

Lawmakers have a number of options for policies that would draw down and eventually phase out fossil fuel production in California, according to a new report from the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment at the UC Berkeley School of Law, co-authored by Elkind and Ted Lamm.

They could impose a higher price on California's oil production through a "severance" tax or carbon-based fee, with the revenue directed to measures that wean the state from fossil fuels. (California, alone among major oil-producing states, does not have an oil severance tax.)

Lawmakers could establish a minimum drilling setback from schools, playgrounds, homes and other sensitive sites. They could push the state's oil and gas regulator, the California Geologic Energy Management Division, to prioritize environmental and climate concerns.

A major factor holding lawmakers back is, of course, politics, including debates over blackouts and climate policy that shape public perception. Given the state’s clean-energy ambitions, it might surprise non-Californians that the oil and gas industry is one of the Golden State’s most powerful special interest groups.

Overcoming a "third-rail issue" in California politics
The Western States Petroleum Association, the sector’s trade group in California's capital of Sacramento, spent $8.8 million lobbying state policymakers in 2019, more than any other interest group. Over the last five years, the group, which cultivates both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, has spent $43.3 million on lobbying, nearly double the total of the second-largest lobbying spender.

Despite former Governor Brown’s reputation as a climate champion, critics say he was unwilling to forcefully take on the oil and gas industry. However, things may take a different turn under Brown's successor, Governor Gavin Newsom.

In May 2019, when Newsom released California's midyear budget revision (PDF), the governor's office noted the need for "careful study and planning to decrease demand and supply of fossil fuels, while managing the decline in a way that is economically responsible and sustainable.”

Related reliability concerns surfaced as blackouts revealed lapses in power supply across the state.

Writing for the advocacy organization Oil Change International, David Turnbull observed, “This may mark the first time that a sitting governor in California has recognized the need to embark upon a managed decline of fossil fuel supply in the state.”

“It is significant because typically this is one of those third-rail issues, kind of a hot potato that governors don’t even want to touch at all — including Jerry Brown, to a large extent, who really focused much more on the demand side of fuel consumption in the state,” said Berkeley Law’s Elkind.

California's revised budget included $1.5 million for a Transition to a Carbon-Neutral Economy report, which is being prepared by University of California researchers for the California Environmental Protection Agency. In an email, a CalEPA spokesperson said the report is due by the end of this year.

Winding down oil and gas production
Since the release of the revised budget last May, Newsom has taken initial steps to increase oversight of the oil and gas industry. In July 2019, he fired the state’s top oil and gas regulator for issuing too many permits to hydraulically fracture, or frack, wells.

Later in the year, he appointed new leadership to oversee oil and gas regulation in the state, and he signed a package of bills that placed constraints on fossil fuel production. The next month, Newsom halted the approval of new fracking operations until pending permits could be reviewed by a panel of scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) did not resume issuing fracking permit approvals until April of this year.

Not all steps have been in the same direction. This month Newsom dropped a proposal to add dozens of analysts, engineers and geologists at CalGEM, citing COVID-related economic pressure. The move would have increased regulatory oversight on fossil fuel producers and was opposed by the state's oil industry.

Ultimately, more durable measures to wind down fossil fuel supply and demand will require new legislation, even as regulators weigh whether the state needs more power plants to maintain reliability.

A 2019 bill by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance), AB 345, would have codified the minimum 2,500-foot setback for new oil and gas wells. However, before the final vote in the Assembly, the bill’s buffer requirement was dropped and replaced with a requirement for CalGEM “to consider a setback distance of 2,500 feet.” The bill passed the Assembly in January over "no" votes from several moderate Democrats; it now awaits action in the Senate.

A bill previously introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), AB 1745, didn’t even make it that far. Ting’s bill would have required that all new passenger cars registered in the state after January 1, 2040, be zero-emission vehicles (ZEV). The bill died in committee without a vote in April 2018.

But the backing of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), one of the world's most powerful air-quality regulators, could change the political conversation. In March, CARB chair Mary Nichols said she now supports consideration of California establishing a 100 percent zero-emission vehicle sales target by 2030, as policymakers also consider a revamp of electricity rates to clean the grid.

“In the past, I’ve been skeptical about whether that would do more harm than good in terms of the backlash by dealers and others against something that sounded so un-California like,” Nichols said during an online event. “But as time has gone on, I’ve become more convinced that we need to send the longer-term signal about where we’re headed.”

Another complicating factor for California’s political leaders is the lack of a willing federal partner — at least in the short term — in winding down oil and gas production, amid warnings about a looming electricity shortage that could pressure the grid.

Under the Trump administration, the Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 15 million acres of federal land in California, has pushed to open more than 1 million acres of public and private land across eight counties in Central California to fracking. In January 2020, California filed a federal lawsuit to block the move.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Trump 2018 budget targets BPA transmission assets for sale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News