Alaska sells clean coal power plant to co-op

Clean Power Plan Rollback signals EPA's shift to inside-the-fence efficiency at coal plants, emphasizing heat-rate improvements over sector-wide decarbonization, renewables, natural gas switching, demand-side efficiency, and carbon capture under Clean Air Act constraints.

Key Points

A policy shift by the EPA to replace broad emissions rules with plant-level efficiency standards, limiting CO2 cuts.

✅ Inside-the-fence heat-rate improvements at coal units

✅ Potential CO2 cuts limited to about 6% per plant

✅ Alternatives: fuel switching, renewables, carbon capture

President Barack Obama’s signature plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electrical generation took years to develop and touched every aspect of power production and use, from smokestacks to home insulation.

The Trump administration is moving to scrap that plan and has signaled that any alternative it might adopt would take a much less expansive approach, possibly just telling utilities to operate their plants more efficiently.

That’s a strategy environmentalists say is almost certain to fall short of what’s needed.

The Trump administration is making "a wholesale retreat from EPA’s legal, scientific and moral obligation to address the threats of climate change," said former Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy, the architect of Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

President Donald Trump promised to rip up the initiative, echoing an end to the 'war on coal' message from his campaign, which mandated that states change their overall power mix, displacing coal-fired electricity with that from wind, solar and natural gas. The EPA is about to make it official, arguing the prior administration violated the Clean Air Act by requiring those broad changes to the electricity sector, according to a draft obtained by Bloomberg.

Possible Replacements

Later, the agency will also ask the public to weigh in on possible replacements. The administration will ask whether the EPA can or should develop a replacement rule -- and, if so, what actions can be mandated at individual power plants, though some policymakers favor a clean electricity standard to drive broader decarbonization.

Follow the Trump Administration’s Every Move

Such changes -- such as adding automation or replacing worn turbine seals -- would yield at most a 6 percent gain in efficiency, along with a corresponding fall in greenhouse gas emissions, according to earlier modeling by the Environmental Protection Agency and other analysts. That compares to the 32 percent drop in emissions by 2030 under Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

"In these existing plants, there’s only so many places to look for savings," said John Larsen, a director of the Rhodium Group, a research firm. "There’s only so many opportunities within a big spinning machine like that."

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt outlined such an "inside-the-fence-line" approach in 2014, later embodied in the Affordable Clean Energy rule that industry groups backed, when he served as Oklahoma’s attorney general. Under his blueprint, states would set emissions standards after a detailed unit-by-unit analysis, looking at what reductions are possible given "the engineering limits of each facility."

The EPA has not decided whether it will promulgate a new rule at all, though it has also proposed new pollution limits for coal and gas plants in separate actions. In a forthcoming advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA will ask "what inside-the-fence-line options are legal, feasible and appropriate," according to a document obtained by Bloomberg.

Increased efficiency at a coal plant -- known as heat-rate improvement -- translates into fewer carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of electric power generated.

Under Obama, the EPA envisioned utilities would make some straightforward efficiency improvements at coal-fired power plants as the first step to comply with the Clean Power Plan. But that was expected to coincide with bigger, broader changes -- such as using more cleaner-burning natural gas, adding more renewable power projects and simply encouraging customers to do a better job turning down their thermostats and turning off their lights.

Obama’s EPA didn’t ask utilities to wring every ounce of efficiency they could out of coal-fired power plants because they saw the other options as cheaper. A plant-specific approach "would be grossly insufficient to address the public health and environmental impacts from CO2 emissions," Obama’s EPA said.

That approach might yield modest emissions reductions and, in a perverse twist, might event have the opposite effect. If utilities make coal plants more efficient -- thereby driving down operating costs -- they also make them more competitive with natural gas and renewables, "so they might run more and pollute more," said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director for the Clean Air Task Force.  

In a competitive market, any improvement in emissions produced for each unit of energy could be overwhelmed by an increase in electrical output, and debates over changes to electricity pricing under Trump and Perry added further uncertainty.

"A very minor heat rate improvement program would very likely result in increased emissions," Schneider said. "It might be worse than nothing."

Power companies want to get as much electricity as possible from every pound of coal, so they already have an incentive to keep efficiency high, said Jeff Holmstead, a former assistant EPA administrator now at Bracewell LLP. But an EPA regulation known as “new source review” has discouraged some from making those changes, for fear of triggering other pollution-control requirements, he said.

"If EPA’s replacement rule allows companies to improve efficiency without triggering new source review, it would make a real difference in terms of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions," Holmstead said.

Modest Impact

A plant-specific approach doesn’t have to mean modest impact.

"If you’re thinking about what can be done at the power plants by themselves, you don’t stop at efficiency tune-ups," said David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate and clean air program. "You look at things like switching to natural gas or installing carbon capture and storage."

Requirements that facilities use carbon capture technology or swap in natural gas for coal could actually come close to hitting the same goals as in Obama’s Clean Power Plan -- if not go even further, Schneider said. They just would cost more.

The benefit of the Clean Power Plan "is that it enabled states to create programs and enabled companies to find a reduction strategy that was the most efficient and made the most sense for their own content," said Kathryn Zyla, deputy director of the Georgetown Climate Center. "And that flexibility was really important for the states and companies."

Some utilities, including Houston-based Calpine Corp., PG&E Corp. and Dominion Resources Inc., backed the Obama-era approach. And they are still pushing the Trump administration to be creative now.

"The Clean Power Plan achieved a thoughtful, balanced approach that gave companies and states considerable flexibility on how best to pursue that goal," said Melissa Lavinson, vice president of federal affairs and policy for PG&E’s Pacific Gas and Electric utility. “We look forward to working with the administration to devise an alternative plan for decarbonizing the U.S. economy."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Cal ISO Flex Alert urges Southern California energy conservation as a Stage 2 emergency strains the power grid, with potential rolling blackouts during peak hours from 3 to 10 p.m., if demand exceeds supply.

Key Points

A statewide call to conserve power during high demand, issued by the grid operator to prevent rolling blackouts.

✅ Stage 2 emergency signals severe grid strain

✅ Peak Flex Alert hours: 3 to 10 p.m. statewide

✅ Set thermostats to 78 and avoid major appliances

Residents and businesses across Southern California were urged to conserve power Tuesday afternoon amid ongoing electricity inequities across the state as the manager of the state’s power grid warned rolling blackouts could be imminent for some power customers.

The California Independent System Operator (Cal ISO), which manages the state power grid, declared a Stage 2 emergency as of 2:30 p.m., indicating severe strain on the electrical system, similar to a recent grid alert in Alberta that relied on reserves.

ADVERTISING

Rolling blackouts for some customers could occur in a Stage 3 emergency, distinct from the intentional shut-offs some utilities use to reduce wildfire risk.

Cal ISO issued a statewide Flex Alert in effect from 3 to 10 p.m. Tuesday and Wednesday, with conservation considered especially critical during those hours, a concern heightened by pandemic-era grid operations this year.

Officials told reporters rolling blackouts might be avoided Tuesday evening if residents repeat the level of conservation seen Monday.
“If we can get the same sort of response we got yesterday, we can minimize this, or perhaps avoid it altogether,” Cal-ISO President/CEO Steve Berberich said, noting that some operators have even planned staff lockdowns during COVID-19 to maintain reliability.

Cal-ISO controls roughly 80% of the state’s power grid through Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., with the utility recently restoring power after shut-offs in affected communities, and San Diego Gas & Electric.

Residents are urged to set thermostats at 78 in the afternoon and evening hours and avoiding the use of air conditioning and major appliances during the Flex Alert hours, as utilities like PG&E prepare for winter storms to improve resilience.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Minnesota 100% Carbon-Free Electricity advances renewable energy: wind, solar, hydropower, hydrogen, biogas from landfill gas and anaerobic digestion; excludes incineration in environmental justice areas; uses renewable energy credits and streamlined permitting.

Key Points

Minnesota's mandate requires utilities to deliver 100% carbon-free power by 2040 with targets and EJ safeguards.

✅ Utilities must hit 90% carbon-free by 2035; 100% by 2040.

✅ Incineration in EJ areas excluded; biogas, wind, solar allowed.

✅ Compliance via renewable credits; streamlined permitting.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, D, is expected to soon sign a bill establishing a clean electricity standard requiring utilities in the state to provide electricity from 100% carbon-free sources by 2040. The bill also calls for utilities to generate at least 55% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2035, a trajectory similar to New Mexico's clean electricity push underway this decade.

Electricity generated from landfill gas and anaerobic digestion are named as approved renewable energy technologies, but electricity generated from incinerators operating in “environmental justice areas”, reflecting concerns about renewable facilities violating pollution rules in some states, will not be counted toward the goal. Wind, solar, and certain hydropower and hydrogen energy sources are also considered renewable in the bill. 

The bill defines EJ areas as places where at least 40% of residents are not white, 35% of households have an income that’s below 200% of the federal poverty line, and 40% or more of residents over age 5 have “limited” English proficiency. Areas the U.S. state defines as “Indian country” are also considered EJ areas.

Some of the state’s largest electric utilities, like Xcel Energy and Minnesota Power, have already pledged to move to carbon-free energy, and utilities such as Alliant Energy have outlined carbon-neutral plans in the region, but this bill speeds up that goal by 10 years, Minnesota Public Radio reported. The bill calls for public utilities operating in the state to be 80% carbon-free and other electric utilities to be 60% carbon-free by 2030. All utilities must be 90% carbon-free by 2035 before ultimately hitting the 100% mark in 2040, according to the bill.  

The bill gives utilities some leniency if they demonstrate to state regulators that they can’t offer affordable power while working toward the benchmarks, acknowledging reliability challenges seen in places like California's grid during the clean energy transition. It also allows utilities to buy renewable energy credits to meet the standard instead of generating the energy themselves. 

Patrick Serfass, executive director of the American Biogas Council, said the bill will incentivize more biogas-related electricity projects, “which means the recycling of more organic material and more renewable electricity in the state. Those are all good things,” he said. ABC sees significant potential for biogas production in Minnesota, though the federal climate law has delivered mixed results for accelerating clean power deployment.

The bill also aims to streamline the permitting process for new energy projects in the state, even as some states consider limits on clean energy that would constrain utility use, and calls for higher minimum wage requirements for workers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. Wind Power 2025 drives record capacity additions, with FERC data showing robust renewable energy growth, IRA incentives, onshore and offshore projects, utility-scale generation, grid integration, and manufacturing investment boosting clean electricity across key states.

Key Points

Overview of record wind additions, IRA incentives, and grid expansion defining the U.S. clean electricity mix in 2025.

✅ FERC: 30.1% of new U.S. capacity in Jan 2025 from wind

✅ Major projects: Cedar Springs IV, Boswell, Prosperity, Golden Hills

✅ IRA incentives drive onshore, offshore builds and manufacturing

In early 2025, wind power has significantly strengthened its position in the United States' electricity generation portfolio. According to data from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), wind energy accounted for 30.1% of the new electricity capacity added in January 2025, and as the most-used renewable source in the U.S., it also surpassed the previous record set in 2024. This growth is attributed to substantial projects such as the 390.4 MW Cedar Springs Wind IV and the 330.0 MW Boswell Wind Farm in Wyoming, along with the 300.0 MW Prosperity Wind Farm in Illinois and the 201.0 MW Golden Hills Wind Farm Expansion in Oregon. 

The expansion of wind energy capacity is part of a broader trend where solar and wind together accounted for over 98% of the new electricity generation capacity added in the U.S. in January 2025. This surge is further supported by the federal government's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and broader policy support for renewables, which has bolstered incentives for renewable energy projects, leading to increased investments and the establishment of new manufacturing facilities. 

By April 2025, clean electricity sources, including wind and solar, were projected to surpass 51% of total utility-scale electricity generation in the U.S., building on a 25.5% renewable share seen in recent data, marking a significant milestone in the nation's energy transition. This achievement is attributed to a combination of factors: a seasonal drop in electricity demand during the spring shoulder season, increased wind speeds in key areas like Texas, and higher solar production due to longer daylight hours and expanded capacity in states such as California, Arizona, and Nevada, supported by record installations across the solar and storage industry. 

Despite a 7% decline in wind power production in early April compared to the same period in 2024—primarily due to weaker wind speeds in regions like Texas—the overall contribution of wind energy remained robust, supported by an 82% clean-energy pipeline that includes wind, solar, and batteries. This resilience underscores the growing reliability of wind power as a cornerstone of the U.S. electricity mix. 

Looking ahead, the U.S. Department of Energy projects that wind energy capacity will continue to grow, with expectations of adding between 7.3 GW and 9.9 GW in 2024, and potentially increasing to 14.5 GW to 24.8 GW by 2028. This growth is anticipated to be driven by both onshore and offshore wind projects, with onshore wind representing the majority of new additions, continuing a trajectory since surpassing hydro capacity in 2016 in the U.S.

Early 2025 has witnessed a notable increase in wind power's share of the U.S. electricity generation mix. This trend reflects the nation's ongoing commitment to expanding renewable energy sources, especially after renewables surpassed coal in 2022, supported by favorable policies and technological advancements. As the U.S. continues to invest in and develop wind energy infrastructure, the role of wind power in achieving a cleaner and more sustainable energy future becomes increasingly pivotal.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

eRex Biomass Power Plant will deliver 300 MW in Japan, offering stable baseload renewable energy, coal-cost parity, and feed-in tariff independence through economies of scale, efficient fuel procurement, and utility-scale operations supporting RE100 demand.

Key Points

A 300 MW Japan biomass project targeting coal-cost parity and FIT-free, stable baseload renewable power.

✅ 300 MW capacity; enough for about 700,000 households

✅ Aims to skip feed-in tariff via economies of scale

✅ Targets coal-cost parity with stable, dispatchable output

Power supplier eRex will build its largest biomass power plant to date in Japan, hoping the facility's scale will provide healthy margins, a strategy increasingly seen among renewable developers pursuing diverse energy sources, and a means of skipping the government's feed-in tariff program.

The Tokyo-based electric company is in the process of selecting a location, most likely in eastern Japan. It aims to open the plant around 2024 or 2025 following a feasibility study. The facility will cost an estimated 90 billion yen ($812 million) or so, and have an output of 300 megawatts -- enough to supply about 700,000 households. ERex may work with a regional utility or other partner

The biggest biomass power plant operating in Japan currently has an output of 100 MW. With roughly triple that output, the new facility will rank among the world's largest, reflecting momentum toward 100% renewable energy globally that is shaping investment decisions.

Nearly all biomass power facilities in Japan sell their output through the government-mediated feed-in tariff program, which requires utilities to buy renewable energy at a fixed price. For large biomass plants that burn wood or agricultural waste, the rate is set at 21 yen per kilowatt-hour. But the program costs the Japanese public more than 2 trillion yen a year, and is said to hamper price competition.

ERex aims to forgo the feed-in tariff with its new plant by reaping economies of scale in operation and fuel procurement. The goal is to make the undertaking as economical as coal energy, which costs around 12 yen per kilowatt-hour, even as solar's rise in the U.S. underscores evolving benchmarks for competitive renewables.

Much of the renewable energy available in Japan is solar power, which fluctuates widely according to weather conditions, though power prediction accuracy has improved at Japanese PV projects. Biomass plants, which use such materials as wood chips and palm kernel shells as fuel, offer a more stable alternative.

Demand for reliable sources of renewable energy is on the rise in the business world, as shown by the RE100 initiative, in which 100 of the world's biggest companies, such as Olympus, have announced their commitment to get 100% of their power from renewable sources. ERex's new facility may spur competition.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News