John Young, a utility executive who was chief financial officer of Chicago-based Exelon Corp., will be the first chief executive of Energy Future Holdings, which acquired TXU Corp. in a $45 billion buyout last year.
Young, 51, will move from Chicago to Dallas and begin work Jan. 29, the company said. TXU's previous CEO, John Wilder, resigned after Energy Future's purchase of TXU closed, on Oct. 10.
Exelon, formerly Commonwealth Edison, is one of the nation's largest utilities, with more than $15 billion in revenues and about 6 million electricity and natural gas customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Among its electricity-generating facilities ar the Handley power plant at 6604 E. Rosedale St. in east Fort Worth and the Mountain Creek power plant in west Dallas, which it bought from TXU in 2001, along with several smaller generators in the Houston area.
In December, Exelon also announced that it had selected an 11,500-acre site in Victoria County, southwest of Houston, possibly for a nuclear power plant. Company officials said they have not committed to the idea but intend by September to apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license.
Young joined Exelon Power in 2003. He was named president of Exelon Generation in 2004 and Exelon's chief financial officer in 2005. Before that he worked for Sierra Pacific Resources, a Nevada utility, and for Atlanta-based Southern Co. In an Energy Future statement, Young said that "since becoming a private company last October, EFH has begun an exciting transformation, and I am looking forward to being a part of that change."
In the same release, EFH Chairman Don Evans said the "breadth and depth of his (Young's) experience, especially on the operations side of the business, uniquely qualifies him to lead the holding company and work with the CEOs of the competitive business subsidiaries."
Energy Future has three units: Luminant, which generates power; TXU Energy, which sells electricity on the retail market; and Oncor Electric Delivery, which operates about 115,000 miles of wires that carry power to approximately 3 million households and businesses.
Luminant and TXU Energy are deregulated, while the Public Utility Commission still regulates Oncor's operations. Young will take the helm of the state's largest utility and largest electricity generator. Luminant is building three coal-fired power plants and contemplating the expansion of its Comanche Peak nuclear plant in Glen Rose, while TXU Energy in recent months has taken steps to slow the exodus of retail customers to cheaper competitors.
Tom "Smitty" Smith, who heads the Austin office of Public Citizen, said that although he doesn't know Young personally, "we wish him well as the company struggles to pay the enormous debt EFH took on and the crushing cost it will take on as the nation deals with the costs of global warming."
Smith also noted that EFH "has made a number of promising moves in the past 11 months" since it announced its plan to buy TXU, including the cancellation of eight of 11 coal-fired plants that TXU had announced.
Washington State Hybrid-Electric Ferries advance green maritime transit with battery-diesel propulsion, lower emissions, and fleet modernization, integrating charging infrastructure and reliable operations across WSF routes to meet climate goals and reduce fuel consumption.
Key Points
New WSF vessels using diesel-battery propulsion to cut emissions, improve efficiency, and sustain reliable ferry service.
✅ Hybrid diesel-battery propulsion reduces fuel use and CO2
✅ Larger vessels with efficient batteries and charging upgrades
✅ Compatible with WSF docks, maintenance, and safety standards
Washington State is embarking on an ambitious update to its ferry fleet, introducing hybrid-electric boats that represent a significant leap toward greener and more sustainable transportation. The state’s updated plans reflect a commitment to reducing carbon emissions and enhancing environmental stewardship while maintaining the efficiency and reliability of its vital ferry services.
The Washington State Ferries (WSF) system, one of the largest in the world, has long been a critical component of the state’s transportation network, linking various islands and coastal communities with the mainland. Traditionally powered by diesel engines, the ferries are responsible for significant greenhouse gas emissions. In response to growing environmental concerns and legislative pressure, WSF is now turning to hybrid-electric technology similar to battery-electric high-speed ferries seen elsewhere to modernize its fleet and reduce its carbon footprint.
The updated plans for the hybrid-electric boats build on earlier efforts to introduce cleaner technologies into the ferry system. The new designs incorporate advanced hybrid-electric propulsion systems that combine traditional diesel engines with electric batteries. This hybrid approach allows the ferries to operate on electric power during certain segments of their routes, reducing reliance on diesel fuel and cutting emissions as electric ships on the B.C. coast have demonstrated during similar operations.
One of the key features of the updated plans is the inclusion of larger and more capable hybrid-electric ferries, echoing BC Ferries hybrid ships now entering service in the region. These vessels are designed to handle the demanding operational requirements of the Washington State Ferries system while significantly reducing environmental impact. The new boats will be equipped with state-of-the-art battery systems that can store and utilize electric power more efficiently, leading to improved fuel economy and lower overall emissions.
The transition to hybrid-electric ferries is driven by both environmental and economic considerations. On the environmental side, the move aligns with Washington State’s broader goals to combat climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including programs like electric vehicle rebate program that encourage cleaner travel across the state. The state has set ambitious targets for reducing carbon emissions across various sectors, and upgrading the ferry fleet is a crucial component of achieving these goals.
From an economic perspective, hybrid-electric ferries offer the potential for long-term cost savings. Although the initial investment in new technology can be substantial, with financing models like CIB support for B.C. electric ferries helping spur adoption and reduce barriers for agencies, the reduced fuel consumption and lower maintenance costs associated with hybrid-electric systems are expected to lead to significant savings over the lifespan of the vessels. Additionally, the introduction of greener technology aligns with public expectations for more sustainable transportation options.
The updated plans also emphasize the importance of integrating hybrid-electric technology with existing infrastructure. Washington State Ferries is working to ensure that the new vessels are compatible with current docking facilities and maintenance practices. This involves updating docking systems, as seen with Kootenay Lake electric-ready ferry preparations, to accommodate the specific needs of hybrid-electric ferries and training personnel to handle the new technology.
Public response to the hybrid-electric ferry initiative has been largely positive, with many residents and environmental advocates expressing support for the move towards greener transportation. The new boats are seen as a tangible step toward reducing the environmental impact of one of the state’s most iconic transportation services. The project also highlights Washington State’s commitment to innovation and leadership in sustainable transportation, alongside global examples like Berlin's electric flying ferry that push the envelope in maritime transit.
However, the transition to hybrid-electric ferries is not without its challenges. Implementing new technology requires careful planning and coordination, including addressing potential technical issues and ensuring that the vessels meet all safety and operational standards. Additionally, there may be logistical challenges associated with integrating the new ferries into the existing fleet and managing the transition without disrupting service.
Despite these challenges, the updated plans for hybrid-electric boats represent a significant advancement in Washington State’s efforts to modernize its transportation system. The initiative reflects a growing trend among transportation agencies to embrace sustainable technologies and address the environmental impact of traditional transportation methods.
In summary, Washington State’s updated plans for hybrid-electric ferries mark a crucial step towards a more sustainable and environmentally friendly transportation network. By incorporating advanced hybrid-electric technology, the state aims to reduce carbon emissions, improve fuel efficiency, and align with its broader climate goals. While challenges remain, the initiative demonstrates a commitment to innovation and underscores the importance of transitioning to greener technologies in the quest for a more sustainable future.
France 2025–2035 Energy Roadmap accelerates carbon neutrality via renewables expansion, energy efficiency, EV adoption, heat pumps, hydrogen, CCS, nuclear buildout, and wind and solar targets, cutting fossil fuels and emissions across transport, housing, industry.
Key Points
A national plan to cut fossil use and emissions, boost renewables, and scale efficiency and clean technologies.
✅ Cuts fossil share to 30% by 2035 with efficiency gains
✅ Scales solar PV and wind; revives nuclear with EPR 2
✅ Electrifies transport and industry with EVs, hydrogen, CCS
Paris is on the verge of finalising its energy roadmap for the period 2025–2035, with an imminent decree expected to be published by the end of the first quarter of 2025. This roadmap is part of France's broader strategy to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, aligning with wider moves toward clean electricity regulations in other jurisdictions.
Key Objectives of the Roadmap
The energy roadmap outlines ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions across various sectors, including transport, housing, food, and energy. The primary goals are:
Reducing Fossil Fuel Dependency: Building on the EU's plan to dump Russian energy, the share of fossil fuels in final energy consumption is to fall from 60% in 2022 to 42% in 2030 and 30% in 2035.
Enhancing Energy Efficiency: A target of a 28.6% reduction in energy consumption between 2012 and 2030 is set, focusing on conservation and energy efficiency measures.
Expanding Decarbonised Energy Production: The roadmap aims to accelerate the development of renewable energies and the revival.
Sector-Specific Targets
Transport: The government aims to cut emissions by 31, focusing on the growth of electric vehicles, increasing public transport, and expanding charging infrastructure.
Housing: Emissions from buildings are to be reduced by 44%, with plans to replace 75% of oil-fired and install 1 million heat pumps.
Agriculture and Food: The roadmap includes measures to reduce emissions from agriculture by 9%, promoting organic farming and reducing the use of nitrogen fertilizers.
Industry: A 37% reduction in emissions is targeted through the use of electricity, biomass, hydrogen, and CO₂ capture and storage technologies informed by energy technology pathways outlined in ETP 2017.
Renewable Energy Targets
The roadmap sets ambitious targets for renewable energy production that align with Europe's ongoing electricity market reform efforts:
Photovoltaic Power: A sixfold increase in photovoltaic power between 2022
Offshore Wind Power: Reaching 18 gigawatts up from 0.6 GW
Onshore Wind Power: Doubling capacity from 21 GW to 45 GW over the same period.
Nuclear Power: The commissioning of the evolutionary power and the construction of six EPR 2 reactors, underpinned by France's deal on electricity prices with EDF to support long-term investment, with the potential for eight more.
Implementation and Governance
The final version of the roadmap will be adopted by decree, alongside a proposed electricity pricing scheme to address EU concerns, rather than being enshrined in law as required by the Energy Code. The government had previously abandoned the energy-climate planning. The decree is expected to be published at the end of the Multiannual Energy Program (PPE) and in the second half of the third National Low-Carbon Strategy (SNBC).
Paris's finalisation of its energy roadmap for 2025–2035 marks a significant step towards achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. The ambitious targets set across various sectors reflect a comprehensive approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to a more sustainable energy system amid the ongoing EU electricity reform debate shaping market rules. The imminent decree will provide the legal framework necessary to implement these plans and drive the necessary changes across the country.
Demand Flexibility Service rewards households and businesses for shifting peak-time electricity use, enhancing grid balancing, energy security, and net zero goals with ESO and Ofgem support, virtual power plants, and 2GW capacity this winter.
Key Points
A grid program paying homes and businesses to shift peak demand, boosting energy security and lowering winter costs.
✅ Pays £3,000/MWh for reduced peak-time usage
✅ Targets at least 2GW via virtual power plants
✅ Rolled out by suppliers with Ofgem and ESO
This month we published our analysis of the British electricity system this winter. Our message is clear: in the base case our analysis indicates that supply margins are expected to be adequate, however this winter will undoubtedly be challenging, with high winter energy costs adding pressure. Therefore, all of us in the electricity system operator (ESO) are working round the clock to manage the system, ensure the flow of energy and do our bit to keep costs down for consumers.
One of the tools we have developed is the demand flexibility service, designed to complement efforts to end the link between gas and electricity prices and reduce bills. From November, this new capability will reward homes and businesses for shifting their electricity consumption at peak times. And we are working with the government, businesses and energy providers to encourage as high a level of take-up as possible. We are confident this innovative approach can provide at least 2 gigawatts of power – about a million homes’ worth.
What began as an initiative to help achieve net zero and keep costs down is also proving to be an important tool in ensuring Britain’s energy security, alongside the Energy Security Bill progressing into law.
We are particularly keen to get businesses involved right across Britain. When the Guardian first reported on this service we had calls from businesses ranging from multinationals to an owner of a fish and chip shop asking how they could do their bit and get signed up.
We can now confirm our proposals for how much people and businesses can be paid for shifting their electricity use outside peak times. We anticipate paying a rate of £3,000 per megawatt hour, reflecting the dynamics of UK natural gas and electricity markets today. Businesses and homes can become virtual power plants and, crucially, get paid like one too. For a consumer that could mean a typical household could save approximately £100, and industrial and commercial businesses with larger energy usage could save multiples of this.
We are working with Ofgem to get this scheme launched in November and for it to be rolled out through energy suppliers. If you are interested in participating, or understanding what you could get paid, please contact your energy supplier.
Innovations such as these have never mattered more. Vladimir Putin’s unlawful aggression means we are facing unprecedented energy market volatility, across the continent where Europe’s worst energy nightmare is becoming reality, and pressures on energy supplies this winter.
As a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine, European gas is scarce and prices are high, prompting Europe to weigh emergency measures to limit electricity prices amid the crisis. Alongside this, France’s nuclear fleet has experienced a higher number of outages than expected. Energy shortages in Europe could have knock-on implications for energy supply in Britain.
We have put in place additional contingency arrangements for this winter. For example, the ability to call on generators to fire-up emergency coal units, even as the crisis is a wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels for many, giving Britain 2GW of additional capacity.
We need to be clear, it is possible that without these measures supply could be interrupted for some customers for limited periods of time. This could eventually force us to initiate a temporary rota of planned electricity outages, meaning that some customers could be without power for up to three hours at a time through a process called the electricity supply emergency code (ESEC).
Under the ESEC process we would advise the public the day before any disconnections. We are working with government and industry on planning for this so that the message can be spread across all communities as quickly and accurately as possible. This would include press conferences, social media campaigns, and working with influencers in different communities.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
CPUC Exit Fee Increase for CCAs adjusts the PCIA, affecting utilities, San Diego ratepayers, renewable energy procurement, customer equity, and cost allocation, while providing regulatory certainty for Community Choice Aggregation programs and clean energy goals.
Key Points
A CPUC-approved change raising PCIA exit fees paid by CCAs to utilities, balancing cost shifts and customer equity.
✅ PCIA rises from about 2.5c to roughly 4.25c per kWh in San Diego
✅ Aims to reduce cost shifts and protect non-CCA customers
✅ Offers regulatory certainty for CCA launches and clean energy goals
The California Public Utilities Commission approved an increase on the exit fees charged to customers who take part in Community Choice Aggregation -- government-run alternatives to traditional utilities like San Diego Gas & Electric.
After reviewing two competing exit fee proposals, all five commissioners voted Thursday in favor of an adjustment that many CCA advocates predicted could hamper the growth of the community choice movement.
But minutes after the vote was announced, one of the leading voices in favor of the city San Diego establishing its own CCA said the decision was good news because it provides some regulatory certainty.
"For us in San Diego, it's a green light to move forward with community choice," said Nicole Capretz, executive director of the Climate Action Campaign. "For us, it's let's go, let's launch and let's give families a choice. We no longer have to wait."
Under the CCA model, utilities still maintain transmission and distribution lines (poles and wires, etc.) and handle customer billing. But officials in a given local government entity make the final decisions about what kind of power sources are purchased.
Once a CCA is formed, its customers must pay an exit fee -- called a Power Charge Indifference Adjustment -- to the legacy utility serving that particular region. The fee is included in customers' monthly bills.
The fee is required to offset the costs of the investments utilities made over the years for things like natural gas power plants, renewable energy facilities and other infrastructure.
Utilities argue if the exit fee is set too low, it does not fairly compensate them for their investments; if it's too high, CCAs complain it reduces the financial incentive for their potential customers.
The Public Utilities Commission chose to adopt a proposal that some said was more favorable to utilities, leading to complaints from CCA boosters.
"We see this will really throw sand in the gears in our ability to do things that can move us toward (climate change) goals," Jim Parks, staff member of Valley Clean Energy, a CCA based in Davis, said before the vote.
Commissioner Carla Peterman, who authored the proposal that passed, said she supports CCAs but stressed the commission has a "legal obligation" to make sure increased costs are not shouldered by "customers who do not, or cannot, join a CCA. Today's proposal ensures a more level playing field between customers."
As for what the vote means for the exit fee in San Diego, Peterman's office earlier in the week estimated the charge would rise from 2.5 cents a kilowatt-hour to about 4.25 cents.
The Clear the Air Coaltion, a San Diego County group critical of CCAs, said the newly established exit fee -- which goes into effect starting next year -- is "a step in the direction."
But the group, which includes the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, the San Diego County Taxpayers Association and lobbyists for Sempra Energy (the parent company of SDG&E), repeated concerns it has brought up before.
"If the city of San Diego decides to get into the energy business this decision means ratepayers in National City, Chula Vista, Carlsbad, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, El Cajon and all other neighboring communities would see higher energy bills, and San Diego taxpayers would be faced with mounting debt," coalition spokesman Tony Manolatos said in an email.
CCA supporters say community choice is critical in ensuring San Diego meets the pledge made by Mayor Kevin Faulconer to adopt the city's Climate Action Plan, mandating 100 percent of the city's electricity needs must come from renewable sources by 2035.
Now attention turns to Faulconer, who promised to make a decision on bringing a CCA proposal to the San Diego City Council only after the utilities commission made its decision.
A Faulconer spokesman said Thursday afternoon that the vote "provides the clarity we've been waiting for to move forward" but did not offer a specific time table.
"We're on schedule to reach Mayor Faulconer's goal of choosing a pathway that achieves our renewable energy goals while also protecting ratepayers, and the mayor looks forward to making his recommendation in the next few weeks," said Craig Gustafson, a Faulconer spokesman, in an email.
A feasibility study released last year predicted a CCA in San Diego has the potential to deliver cheaper rates over time than SDG&E's current service, while providing as much as 50 percent renewable energy by 2023 and 80 percent by 2027.
"The city has already figured out we are still capable of launching a program, having competitive, affordable rates and finally offering families a choice as to who their energy provider is," said Capretz, who helped draft an initial blueprint of the climate plan as a city staffer.
SDG&E has come to the city with a counterproposal that offers 100 percent renewables by 2035.
Thus far, the utility has produced a rough outline for a "tariff" program that would charge ratepayers the cost of delivering more clean sources of energy over time.
Some council members have expressed frustration more specifics have not been sketched out.
SDG&E officials said they will take the new exit fee into account as they go forward with their counterproposal to the city council.
Speaking in general about the utility commission's decision, SDG&E spokeswoman Helen Gao called it "a victory for our customers, as it minimizes the cost shifts that they have been burdened with under the existing fee formula.
"As commissioners noted in rendering their decision, reforming the (exit fee) addresses a customer-to-customer equity issue and has nothing to do with increasing profits for investor-owned utilities," Gao said in an email.
Washington-Led Lawsuit Against Energy Emergency challenges President Trump's executive order, citing state rights, environmental reviews, permitting, and federal overreach; coalition argues record energy output undermines emergency claims in Seattle federal court.
Key Points
Multistate suit to void Trump's energy emergency, alleging federal overreach and weakened environmental safeguards.
✅ Challenges executive order's legal basis and scope
✅ Seeks to halt emergency permits for non-emergencies
In a significant legal move, Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown has spearheaded a coalition of 15 states in filing a lawsuit against President Donald Trump's executive order declaring a national energy emergency. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Seattle on May 9, 2025, challenges the legality of the emergency declaration, which aims to expedite permitting processes for fossil fuel projects in pursuit of an energy dominance vision by bypassing key environmental reviews.
Background of the Energy Emergency Declaration
President Trump's executive order, issued on January 20, 2025, asserts that the United States faces an inadequate and unreliable energy grid, particularly affecting the Northeast and West Coast regions. The order directs federal agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior, to utilize "any lawful emergency authorities" to facilitate the development of domestic energy resources, with a focus on oil, gas, and coal projects. This includes expediting reviews under the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act, potentially reducing public input and environmental oversight.
Legal Grounds for the Lawsuit
The coalition of states, led by Washington and California, argues that the emergency declaration is an overreach of presidential authority, echoing disputes over the Affordable Clean Energy rule in federal courts. They contend that U.S. energy production is already at record levels, and the declaration undermines state rights and environmental protections. The lawsuit seeks to have the executive order declared unlawful and to halt the issuance of emergency permits for non-emergency projects.
Implications for Environmental Protections
Critics of the energy emergency declaration express concern that it could lead to significant environmental degradation. By expediting permitting processes, including geothermal permitting, and reducing public participation, the order may allow projects to proceed without adequate consideration of their impact on water quality, wildlife habitats, and cultural resources. Environmental advocates argue that such actions could set a dangerous precedent, enabling future administrations to bypass essential environmental safeguards under the guise of national emergencies, even as the EPA advances new pollution limits for coal and gas plants to address the climate crisis.
Political and Legal Reactions
The Trump administration defends the executive order, asserting that the president has the authority to declare national emergencies and that the energy emergency is necessary to address perceived deficiencies in the nation's energy infrastructure and potential electricity pricing changes debated by industry groups. However, legal experts suggest that the broad application of emergency powers in this context may face challenges in court. The outcome of the lawsuit could have significant implications for the balance of power between state and federal authorities, as well as the future of environmental regulations in the United States.
The legal challenge led by Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown represents a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over energy policy and environmental protection. As the lawsuit progresses through the courts, it will likely serve as a bellwether for future conflicts between state and federal governments regarding the scope of executive authority and the preservation of environmental standards, amid ongoing efforts to expand uranium and nuclear energy programs nationwide. The outcome may set a precedent for how national emergencies are declared and managed, particularly concerning their impact on state governance and environmental laws.
