27,000 solar panels yield enough energy for 500 homes

FERC Transmission Rule accelerates grid modernization and interregional high-voltage lines, enabling renewable energy integration, load balancing, and reliability to advance net-zero goals while strengthening resilience, capacity expansion, and decarbonization across U.S. regional transmission organizations.

Key Points

A federal policy mandating interregional grid planning and cost sharing to expand high-voltage lines for renewables.

✅ Expands interregional high-voltage transmission capacity

✅ Improves reliability, resilience, and load balancing

✅ Aligns cost allocation and long-term planning for renewables

On May 13th, 2024, the US took a monumental step towards its clean energy goals. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved a long-awaited rule designed to significantly expand the transmission of renewable energy across the nation's power grid, a US grid overhaul that many advocates say was overdue. This decision aligns with President Biden's ambitious plan to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, with renewable energy playing a central role.

The new rule tackles a critical bottleneck hindering the widespread adoption of renewables – transmission infrastructure. Unlike traditional power plants like coal or natural gas that run constantly, solar and wind power generation fluctuates with weather conditions. This variability poses a challenge for the existing grid, which is not designed to efficiently handle large-scale integration of these intermittent sources, helping explain why the grid isn't 100% renewable today.

The FERC rule aims to address this by promoting the construction of new, high-voltage transmission lines, particularly those connecting different regions, where grid limitations in the Pacific Northwest have highlighted the need for better interregional transfers. This improved connectivity would allow for a more strategic distribution of renewable energy. Imagine solar energy harnessed in the sun-drenched Southwest being transmitted eastward to meet peak demand during hot summer days on the Atlantic Coast.

The benefits of this expanded transmission network are multifaceted. First, it unlocks the full potential of renewable resources by allowing for their efficient utilization across the country, a trend consistent with wind and solar surpassing coal in U.S. generation. Abundant wind power in the Midwest could be utilized on the West Coast, while surplus solar energy from the South could supplement demand in the Northeast.

Second, a more robust grid with a higher capacity for renewables reduces reliance on fossil fuel-based power plants and complements other ways to meet decarbonization goals across sectors. This translates to cleaner air and a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to the fight against climate change.

Third, a modernized grid with improved long-distance transmission bolsters the nation's energy security. Extreme weather events, a growing concern due to climate change, can disrupt energy production in specific regions. This interconnected grid would provide a buffer, ensuring a more reliable and resilient power supply and helping put regions on the road to 100% renewables even during adverse weather conditions.

The FERC's decision is a win for environmental groups and the renewable energy industry. They see it as a critical step towards a cleaner energy future and a significant driver of job creation in the construction and maintenance of new transmission lines. However, concerns have been raised by some stakeholders, particularly investor-owned utilities. They worry about the potential cost burden associated with building these expansive new lines, and recent reports of stalled grid spending underscore those concerns and the need for efficient cost allocation mechanisms. Striking a balance between efficiency, affordability, and environmental responsibility will be crucial for the successful implementation of this policy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out reflects a decisive energy policy shift, retiring reactors as firms shun new builds amid high costs, radioactive waste challenges, climate goals, insurance gaps, and debate over small modular reactors and subsidies.

Key Points

Germany's policy to end nuclear plants and block new builds, emphasizing safety, waste, climate goals, and viability.

✅ Driven by safety risks, waste storage limits, and insurance gaps

✅ High capital costs and subsidies make new reactors uneconomic

✅ Political debate persists; SMRs raise cost and proliferation concerns

A year has passed since Germany deactivated its last three nuclear power plants, marking a significant shift in its energy policy.

Nuclear fission once heralded as the future of energy in Germany during the 1960s, was initially embraced with minimal concern for the potential risks of nuclear accidents. As Heinz Smital from Greenpeace recalls, the early optimism was partly driven by national interest in nuclear weapon technology rather than energy companies' initiatives.

Jochen Flasbarth, State Secretary in the Ministry of Development, reflects on that era, noting Germany's strong, almost naive, belief in technology. Germany, particularly the Ruhr region, grappled with smog-filled skies at that time due to heavy industrialization and coal-fired power plants. Nuclear energy presented a "clean" alternative at the time.

This sentiment was also prevalent in East Germany, where the first commercial nuclear power plant came online in 1961. In total, 37 nuclear reactors were activated across Germany, reflecting a widespread confidence in nuclear technology.

However, the 1970s saw a shift in attitudes. Environmental activists protested the construction of new power plants, symbolizing a generational rift. The 1979 Three Mile Island incident in the US, followed by the catastrophic Chornobyl disaster in 1986, further eroded public trust in nuclear energy.

The Chornobyl accident, in particular, significantly dampened Germany's nuclear ambitions, according to Smital. Post-Chernobyl, plans for additional nuclear power plants in Germany, once numbering 60, drastically declined.

The emergence of the Green Party in 1980, rooted in anti-nuclear sentiment, and its subsequent rise to political prominence further influenced Germany's energy policy. The Greens, joining forces with the Social Democrats in 1998, initiated a move away from nuclear energy, facing opposition from the Christian Democrats (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU).

However, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 prompted a policy reversal from CDU and CSU under Chancellor Angela Merkel, leading to Germany's eventual nuclear phase-out in March 2023, after briefly extending nuclear power amid the energy crisis.

Recently, the CDU and CSU have revised their stance once more, signaling a potential U-turn on the nuclear phaseout, advocating for new nuclear reactors and the reactivation of the last shut-down plants, citing climate protection and rising fossil fuel costs. CDU leader Friedrich Merz has lamented the shutdown as a "black day for Germany." However, these suggestions have garnered little enthusiasm from German energy companies.

Steffi Lemke, the Federal Environment Minister, isn't surprised by the companies' reluctance, noting their longstanding opposition to nuclear power, which she argues would do little to solve the gas issue in Germany, due to its high-risk nature and the long-term challenge of radioactive waste management.

Globally, 412 reactors are operational across 32 countries, even as Europe is losing nuclear power during an energy crunch, with the total number remaining relatively stable over the years. While countries like China, France, and the UK plan new constructions, there's a growing interest in small, modern reactors, which Smital of Greenpeace views with skepticism, noting their potential military applications.

In Germany, the unresolved issue of nuclear waste storage looms large. With temporary storage facilities near power plants proving inadequate for long-term needs, the search for permanent sites faces resistance from local communities and poses financial and logistical challenges.

Environment Minister Lemke underscores the economic impracticality of nuclear energy in Germany, citing prohibitive costs and the necessity of substantial subsidies and insurance exemptions.

As things stand, the resurgence of nuclear power in Germany appears unlikely, with economic factors playing a decisive role in its future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. Russian Uranium Import Ban reshapes nuclear fuel supply, bolstering energy security, domestic enrichment, and sanctions policy while diversifying reactor-grade uranium sources and supply chains through allies, waivers, and funding to sustain utilities and reliability.

Key Points

A U.S. law halting Russian uranium imports to boost energy security diversify nuclear fuel and revive U.S. enrichment.

✅ Cuts Russian revenue; reduces geopolitical risk.

✅ Funds U.S. enrichment; supports reactor fuel supply.

✅ Enables waivers to prevent utility shutdowns.

In a move aimed at reducing reliance on Russia and fostering domestic energy security for the long term, the United States has banned imports of Russian uranium, a critical component of nuclear fuel. This decision, signed into law by President Biden in May 2024, marks a significant shift in the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain and has far-reaching economic and geopolitical implications.

For decades, Russia has been a major supplier of enriched uranium, a processed form of uranium used to power nuclear reactors. The U.S. relies on Russia for roughly a quarter of its enriched uranium needs, feeding the nation's network of 94 nuclear reactors operated by utilities which generate nearly 20% of the country's electricity. This dependence has come under scrutiny in recent years, particularly following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The ban on Russian uranium is a multifaceted response. First and foremost, it aims to cripple a key revenue stream for the Russian government. Uranium exports are a significant source of income for Russia, and by severing this economic tie, the U.S. hopes to weaken Russia's financial capacity to wage war.

Second, the ban serves as a national energy security measure. Relying on a potentially hostile nation for such a critical resource creates vulnerabilities. The possibility of Russia disrupting uranium supplies, either through political pressure or in the event of a wider conflict, is a major concern. Diversifying the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain mitigates this risk.

Third, the ban is intended to revitalize the domestic uranium mining and enrichment industry, building on earlier initiatives such as Trump's uranium order announced previously. The U.S. has historically been a major uranium producer, but environmental concerns and competition from cheaper foreign sources led to a decline in domestic production. The ban, coupled with $2.7 billion in federal funding allocated to expand domestic uranium enrichment capacity, aims to reverse this trend.

The transition away from Russian uranium won't be immediate. The law includes a grace period until mid-August 2024, and waivers can be granted to utilities facing potential shutdowns if alternative suppliers aren't readily available. Finding new sources of enriched uranium will require forging partnerships with other uranium-producing nations like Kazakhstan, Canada on minerals cooperation, and Australia.

The long-term success of this strategy hinges on several factors. First, successfully ramping up domestic uranium production will require overcoming regulatory hurdles and addressing environmental concerns, alongside nuclear innovation to modernize the fuel cycle. Second, securing reliable alternative suppliers at competitive prices is crucial, and supportive policy frameworks such as the Nuclear Innovation Act now in law can help. Finally, ensuring the continued safe and efficient operation of existing nuclear reactors is paramount.

The ban on Russian uranium is a bold move with significant economic and geopolitical implications. While challenges lie ahead, the potential benefits of a more secure and domestically sourced nuclear fuel supply chain are undeniable. The success of this initiative will be closely watched not only by the U.S. but also by other nations seeking to lessen their dependence on Russia for critical resources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC Hydro Winter Payment Plan lets customers spread electricity bills over six months during cold weather, easing costs amid colder-than-average temperatures in British Columbia, with low-income conservation support, energy-saving kits, and insulation upgrades.

Key Points

Allows BC Hydro customers to spread winter electricity bills over six months, with added low-income efficiency support.

✅ Spread Dec-Mar bills across six months

✅ Eases costs during colder-than-average temperatures

✅ Includes low-income conservation and energy-saving kits

As colder temperatures set in across the province again this weekend, BC Hydro says it is activating its winter payment plan to give customers the opportunity to spread out their electricity bills as demand can reach record levels during extreme cold periods.

"Our meteorologists are predicting colder-than-average temperatures will continue over the next of couple of months and we want to provide customers with help to manage their payments," said Chris O'Riley, BC Hydro's president.

All BC Hydro customers will be able to spread payments from the billing period spanning Dec. 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018 over a six-month period.

Cold weather in the second half of December 2017 led to surging electricity demand that was higher than the previous 10-year average and has at times hit all-time highs during peak usage periods, according to BC Hydro.

Hydro operations also respond to summer conditions, as drought and low rainfall can force adjustments in power generation strategies.

People who heat their homes with electricity — about 40 per cent of British Columbians —  have the highest overall bills in the province, $197 more in December than in July, when air conditioning use can affect energy costs.

This is the second year the Crown corporation has activated a cold-weather payment plan, part of broader customer assistance programs it offers.  

BC Hydro has also increased funding for its low-income conservation programs by $2.2 million for a total of $10 million over the next three years. 

The low-income program provides energy-saving kits that include things like free energy assessments, insulation upgrades and weather stripping. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change 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

Utility Pandemic Preparedness strengthens grid resilience through continuity planning, critical infrastructure protection, DOE-DHS coordination, onsite sequestration, skeleton crews, and deferred maintenance to ensure reliable electric and gas service for commercial and industrial customers.

Key Points

Plans that sustain grid operations during outbreaks using staffing limits, access controls, and deferred maintenance.

✅ Deferred maintenance and restricted site access

✅ Onsite sequestering and skeleton crew operations

✅ DOE-DHS coordination and control center staffing

Commercial and industrial businesses can rest assured that the current pandemic poses no real threat to our utilities, with the U.S. grid remaining reliable for now, as disaster planning has been key to electric and gas utilities in recent years, writes Forbes. Beginning a decade ago, the utility and energy industries evolved detailed pandemic plans, outlining what to know about the U.S. grid during outbreaks, which include putting off maintenance and routine activities until the worst of the pandemic has passed, restricting site access to essential personnel, and being able to run on a skeleton crew as more and more people become ill, a capability underscored by FPL's massive Irma response when crews faced prolonged outages.

One possible outcome of the current situation is that the US electric industry may require essential staff to live onsite at power plants and control centers, similar to Ontario work-site lockdown plans under consideration, if the outbreak worsens; bedding, food and other supplies are being stockpiled, reflecting local response preparations many utilities practice, Reuters reported. The Great River Energy cooperative, for example, has had a plan to sequester essential staff in place since the H1N1 bird flu crisis in 2009. The cooperative, which runs 10 power plants in Minnesota, says its disaster planning ensured it has enough cots, blankets and other necessities on site to keep staff healthy.

Electricity providers are now taking part in twice-weekly phone calls with officials at the DOE, the Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies, as Ontario demand shifts are monitored, according to the Los Angeles Times. By planning for a variety of worst case scenarios, including weeks-long restorations after major storms, “I have confidence that the sector will be prepared to respond no matter how this evolves,” says Scott Aaronson, VP of security and preparedness for the Edison Electric Institute.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News