US Senate stimulus bill opens nuclear loan-guarantee door

BC Hydro Customer Crisis Fund Surplus highlights unused grants, pilot program imbalance, and calls to reduce fees or expand eligibility. Ratepayers, regulators, and social agencies urge awareness, rebates, and aid for overdue electricity bills.

Key Points

A funding carryover from BC Hydro's crisis grants, sparking debate over fee reductions or more aid eligibility.

✅ $2.9M surplus from 25-cent monthly customer fee

✅ Only 2,250 grants issued; awareness and eligibility questioned

✅ Regulator may refund balance or adjust program design

BC Hydro is sitting on a surplus of about $2.9 million in its customer crisis fund, even as BC Hydro rates rise 3% across the province, leading to calls for the utility to reduce its take from the average customer or provide more money to those in need.

B.C. Liberal Energy Critic Greg Kyllo said if the imbalance continues in the year-old pilot program, amid a provincial rate freeze announced by the province, it’s time to cut the monthly 25 cent fee in half.

"If the grant requirement or the need in the province is going to remain where it is, they should look at rolling back the contribution level in the fund," he told CTV News Vancouver from Salmon Arm.

But social agencies who were part of the consultation around the fund in the beginning said it’s more likely that people in need don’t know about the fund and more time is necessary to get the word out.

"If they collect the money, then the program’s got to change to make sure more people are able to be helped," said Gudrun Langolf of the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of BC.

The customer crisis fund was started in spring 2018 to give people short-term relief when they can’t pay their electricity bills, especially as a $2 monthly hike pressures household budgets. Customers can apply to get a grant of up to $500 to keep the lights on, and up to $600 if electricity heats their homes.

The public utility took in about 25 cents per customer per month which added up to a revenue of $4.5 million in the year since the program started, BC Hydro confirmed to CTV News.

But the agency only gave out 2,250 grants totalling $850,000.

Administration costs added up around $750,000 – leaving the $2.9 million remaining.

The news will come as a welcome relief to those who suddenly struggle to pay their hydro bills, particularly as Alberta ratepayers are on the hook under a utility deferral program elsewhere in Canada.

Some people who come into Disability Alliance B.C. are often anxious and emotional when they’re suddenly unable to pay their bills, said Shar Saremi, an advocate there.

"I’ve had people crying. I’ve had people who have experienced a loss in the family," she said. "A lot of the time people are stressed out, anxious, really upset. They are looking for assistance, and they aren’t sure what is available for them."

She said people are only eligible if their bills are under $1,000, which could be cutting out the people who are most in need. And because the program is in its first year, it could be undersubscribed, she said.

"A lot of people don’t know about the program, don’t know how to apply, or what kind of assistance is out there," Saremi said.

The fund was established thanks to an order from the B.C. Utilities Commission, the utilities regulator in the province.

The pilot program is going to be examined by the regulator at the end of its first year.

"Any remaining balance in the account at the end of the pilot would be returned to residential ratepayers," says a BCUC fact sheet, as BC Hydro rates are set to rise 3.75% over two years. The decision on exactly what to do with the money hasn’t yet been made.

In Manitoba, a similar program is by donation, and in Newfoundland and Labrador a lump-sum credit was offered to bill payers in a separate initiative. That program raised about $200,000 from customers and $60,000 in other income. It spent $199,000 on grants to applicants, but lost about $20,000 a year.

In Ontario, private utilities are expected to raise 0.12 per cent of their revenue, and Hydro One reconnections have highlighted the stakes for nonpayment there. Across the province, those utilities gave out about $7.3 million in grants. Any unused funds in one year are rolled over to the following year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

IRENA Climate Investment Platform accelerates renewable energy financing through de-risking, bankable projects, and public-private partnerships, advancing Paris Agreement goals via grid integration, microgrids, and decarbonization while expanding access, jobs, and sustainable economic growth.

Key Points

A global platform linking bankable renewable projects with finance, derisking and partners to scale decarbonization.

✅ Connects developers with banks, funds, and insurers

✅ Promotes de-risking via policy, PPAs, and legal frameworks

✅ Targets Paris goals with grid, microgrids, and off-grid access

The heads-of-state and energy ministers from more than 120 nations just met in Abu Dhabi and they had one thing in common: a passion to increase the use of renewable energy to reduce the threat from global warming — one that will also boost economic output and spread prosperity. Access to finance, though, is critical to this goal. 

Indeed, the central message to emerge from the conference hosted by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) this week in the United Arab Emirates is that a global energy transition is underway that has the potential to revitalize economies and to lift people out of poverty. But such a conversion requires international cooperation and a common desire to address the climate cause. 

“The renewable energy sector created jobs employing 11 million people in 2019 and provided off-grid solutions, having helped bring the number of people with no access to electricity to under 1 billion,” the current president of the UN General Assembly Tiijani Muhammad-Bande of Nigeria told the audience. 

Today In: Business
While renewables are improving energy access and reducing inequities, they also have the potential to curb CO2 emissions globally. The goal is to shrink them by 45% by 2030 and 90% by 2050, with Canada's net-zero race highlighting the role of renewable energy in achieving those targets. Getting there, though, requires progressive government policies that will help to attract financing. 

According to IRENA, investment in the clean energy sector is now at $330 billion a year. But if the 2050 goals are to be reached, those levels must nearly double to $750 billion annually. The green energy sector does not want to compete with the oil and gas sectors but rather, it is seeking to diversify fuel sources — a strategy that could help make electricity systems more resilient to climate risks. To hit the Paris agreement’s targets, it says that renewable energy deployment must increase by a factor of six.  

To that end, IRENA is forming a “climate investment platform” that will bring ideas to the table and then introduce prospective parties. It will focus on those projects that it believes are “bankable.”

It’s about helping project developers find banks, private companies and pension funds to finance their worthy projects, IRENA Director General Francesco La Camera said in response to this reporter’s question. Moreover, he said that the platform would work to ensure there is a sound legal structure and that there is legislative support to “de-risk” the investments. 

“Overcoming investment needs for energy transformation infrastructure is one of the most notable barriers to the achievement of national goals,” La Camera says. “Therefore, the provision of capital to support the adoption of renewable energy is key to low-carbon sustainable economic development and plays a central role in bringing about positive social outcomes.”

If the monies are to flow into new projects, governments have to create an environment where innovation is to be rewarded: tax incentives for renewables along with the design and implementation of transition plans. The aim is to scale up which in turn, leads to new jobs and greater economic productivity — a payback of three-to-seven times the initial investment.  

The path of least resistance, for now, is off-grid green energy solutions, or providing electricity to rural areas by installing solar panels that may connect to localized microgrids. Africa, which has a half-billion people without reliable electricity, would benefit. However, “If you want to go to scale and have bankable projects, you have to be connected to the grid,” Moira Wahba, with the UN Development Program, told this writer. “That requires large capital and private enterprise.”

Public policy must thus work to create the knowledge base and the advocacy to help de-risk the investments. Government’s role is to reassure investors that they will not be subject to arbitrary laws or the crony allocation of contracts. Risk takers know there are no guarantees. But they want to compete on a level playing. 

Analyzing Risk Profiles

He is speaking during the World Energy Future Summit. 
Sultan Al Jabber, chief executive of Abu Dhabi’s national oil company, Adnoc, who is also the former ... [+]ABU DHABI SUSTAINABILITY WEEK
How do foreign investors square the role of utilities that are considered safe and sound with their potential expansion into new fields such as investing in carbon-free electricity and in new places? The elimination of risk is not possible, says Mohamed Jameel Al Ramahi, chief executive officer of UAE-based Masdar. But the need to decarbonize is paramount. The head of the renewable energy company says that every jurisdiction has its own risk profile but that each one must be fully transparent while also properly structuring their policies and regulations. And there needs to be insurance for political risks. 

The United States and China, for example, are already “de-risked,” because they are deploying “gigawatts of renewables,” he told this writer. “When we talk about doubling the amount of needed investment, we have to take into account the risk profile of the whole world. If it is a high-risk jurisdiction, it will be difficult to bring in foreign capital.” 

The most compelling factor that will drive investment is whether the global community can comply with the Paris agreement, says Dr. Thani Ahmed Al Zeyoudi, Minister of the Ministry of Climate Change and the Environment for the United Arab Emirates. The goal is to limit increases to 2 degrees Celsius by mid-century, with the understanding that the UN’s latest climate report emphasizes that positive results are urgently needed. 

One of the most effective mechanisms is the public-private model. Governments, for example, are signing long-term power purchase agreements, giving project developers the necessary income they need to operate, and in the EU plans to double electricity use by 2050 are reinforcing these commitments. They can also provide grants and bring in international partners such as the World Bank. 

“We are seeing the impact of climate change with the various extreme events: the Australian fires, the cyclones and the droughts,” the minister told reporters. “We can no longer pass this to future generations to deal with.” 

The United Arab Emirates is not just talking about it, adds Sultan Al Jabber, chief executive of Abu Dhabi’s national oil company, Adnoc, who is also the former head of subsidiary Masdar. It is acting now, and across Europe Big Oil is turning electric as traditional players pivot too. His comments came during Abu Dhabi’s Sustainability Week at the World Future Energy Summit. The country is “walking the walk” by investing in renewable projects around the globe and it is growing its own green energy portfolio. Addressing climate change is “right” while it is also making “perfect economic sense.” 

The green energy transition has taken root in advanced economies while it is making inroads in the developing world — a movement that has the twin effect of addressing climate change and creating economic opportunities, and one that aligns with calls to transform into a sustainable electric planet for long-term prosperity. But private investment must double, which requires proactive governments to limit unnecessary risks and to craft the incentives to attract risk-takers. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

London, Ontario Power Outage disrupts the electricity grid, causing a citywide blackout, stalled commuters, dark traffic signals, and closed businesses, as London Hydro crews race restoration after a transformer malfunction and infrastructure failures.

Key Points

A blackout caused by a transformer malfunction, disrupting commuters, businesses, and traffic across London, Ontario.

✅ Traffic signals dark; delays and congestion citywide

✅ London Hydro crews repairing malfunctioning transformer

✅ Businesses closed; transit routes delayed and rerouted

A widespread power outage early Monday morning left thousands of residents in London, Ontario, without electricity, causing significant disruption for commuters and businesses at the start of the workday. The outage, which affected several neighborhoods across the city, lasted for hours, creating a chaotic morning as residents scrambled to adjust to the unexpected interruption.

The Outage Strikes

The power failure was first reported at approximately 6:30 a.m., catching many off guard as they began their day. The affected areas included several busy neighborhoods, with power lines down and substations impacted, issues that windstorms often exacerbate for utilities. Early reports indicated that the outage was caused by a combination of issues, including technical failures and possible equipment malfunctions. London Hydro, the city's primary electricity provider, responded quickly to the situation, assuring residents that crews were dispatched to restore power as soon as possible.

"Crews are on site and working hard to restore power to those affected," a spokesperson for London Hydro said. "We understand the frustration this causes and are doing everything we can to get the power back on as soon as possible."

Impact on Commuters and Businesses

The power outage had an immediate impact on the morning commute. Traffic lights across the affected areas were down, leading to delays and rush-hour disruptions at major intersections. Drivers were forced to navigate through intersections without traffic control, creating an additional layer of complexity for those trying to get to work or school.

Public transit was also affected, with some bus routes delayed due to the power loss at key transit stations. The situation added further stress to commuters already dealing with the challenges of a typical Monday morning rush.

Businesses in the affected neighborhoods faced a variety of challenges. Some were forced to close early or delay their opening hours due to a lack of electricity. Many shops and offices struggled with limited access to the internet and phone lines, which hindered their ability to process orders and serve customers. Local coffee shops, often a go-to for busy workers, were also unable to operate their coffee machines or provide basic services, forcing customers to go without their usual morning caffeine fix.

"For a lot of people, it's their first stop in the morning," said one local business owner. "It’s frustrating because we rely on power to function, and with no warning, we had to turn away customers."

The Response

As the hours ticked by, residents were left wondering when the power would return. London Hydro’s social media accounts were filled with updates, keeping residents informed about the restoration efforts, a practice echoed when BC Hydro crews responded during an atypical storm. The utility company urged those who were experiencing issues to report them online to help prioritize repair efforts.

"We are aware that many people are affected, and our teams are working tirelessly to restore power," the utility posted on Twitter. "Please stay safe, and we thank you for your patience."

Throughout the morning, the power was gradually restored to different areas of the city. However, some parts remained without electricity well into the afternoon, a situation reminiscent of extended outages that test city resilience. London Hydro confirmed that the outage was caused by a malfunctioning transformer, and the necessary repairs would take time to complete.

Long-Term Effects and Community Concerns

While the immediate effects of the outage were felt most acutely during the morning hours, some residents expressed concern about the potential long-term effects. The city’s reliance on a stable electricity grid became a focal point of discussion, with many wondering if similar outages could occur in the future, as seen in the North Seattle outage earlier this year.

"I understand that things break, but it’s frustrating that it took so long for power to come back," said a London resident. "This isn’t the first time something like this has happened, and it makes me wonder about the reliability of our infrastructure."

City officials responded by reassuring residents that efforts are underway to upgrade the city's infrastructure to prevent such outages from happening in the future. A report released by London Hydro highlighted ongoing investments in upgrading transformers and other key components of the city's power grid. Province-wide, Hydro One restored power to more than 277,000 customers after damaging storms, underscoring the scale of upgrades needed. Despite these efforts, however, experts warn that older infrastructure in some areas may still be vulnerable to failure, especially during extreme weather events or other unforeseen circumstances.

The morning outage serves as a reminder of how reliant modern cities are on stable electricity networks. While the response from London Hydro was swift and effective in restoring power, it’s clear that these types of events can cause significant disruptions to daily life. As the city moves forward, many are calling for increased investment in infrastructure and proactive measures to prevent future outages, especially after Toronto outages persisted following a spring storm in the region.

In the meantime, Londoners have adapted, finding ways to go about their day as best they can. For some, it’s a reminder of the importance of preparedness in an increasingly unpredictable world. Whether it’s an extra flashlight or a backup power source, residents are learning to expect the unexpected and be ready for whatever the next workday might bring.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis highlights nuclear power vs coal and natural gas, renewables and hydropower limits, carbon emissions, energy security, and baseload reliability during Russia-related supply shocks and winter demand.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis weighs reactor extensions vs coal revival to bolster security, curb emissions.

✅ Coal plants restarted; nuclear shutdown stays on schedule.

✅ Energy security prioritized amid Russian gas supply cuts.

✅ Emissions likely rise despite renewables expansion.

Peel away the politics and the passion, the doomsaying and the denialism, and climate change largely boils down to this: energy. To avoid the chances of catastrophic climate change while ensuring the world can continue to grow — especially for poor people who live in chronically energy-starved areas — we’ll need to produce ever more energy from sources that emit little or no greenhouse gases.

It’s that simple — and, of course, that complicated.

Zero-carbon sources of renewable energy like wind and solar have seen tremendous increases in capacity and equally impressive decreases in price in recent years, while the decades-old technology of hydropower is still what the International Energy Agency calls the “forgotten giant of low-carbon electricity.”

And then there’s nuclear power. Viewed strictly through the lens of climate change, nuclear power can claim to be a green dream, even as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy most.

Unlike coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions when they generate electricity, and over the past 50 years they’ve reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 60 gigatonnes. Unlike solar or wind, nuclear plants aren’t intermittent, and they require significantly less land area per megawatt produced. Unlike hydropower — which has reached its natural limits in many developed countries, including the US — nuclear plants don’t require environmentally intensive dams.

As accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown, when nuclear power goes wrong, it can go really wrong. But newer plant designs reduce the risk of such catastrophes, which themselves tend to garner far more attention than the steady stream of deaths from climate change and air pollution linked to the normal operation of conventional power plants.

So you might imagine that those who see climate change as an unparalleled existential threat would cheer the development of new nuclear plants and support the extension of nuclear power already in service.

In practice, however, that’s often not the case, as recent events in Germany underline.

When is a Green not green?
The Russian war in Ukraine has made a mess of global energy markets, but perhaps no country has proven more vulnerable than Germany, reigniting debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany among policymakers.

At the start of the year, Russian exports supplied more than half of Germany’s natural gas, along with significant portions of its oil and coal imports. Since the war began, Russia has severely curtailed the flow of gas to Germany, putting the country in a state of acute energy crisis, with fears growing as next winter looms.

With little natural gas supplies of the country’s own, and its heavily supported renewable sector unable to fully make up the shortfall, German leaders faced a dilemma. To maintain enough gas reserves to get the country through the winter, they could try to put off the closure of Germany’s last three remaining nuclear reactors temporarily, which were scheduled to shutter by the end of 2022 as part of Germany’s post-Fukushima turn against nuclear power, and even restart already closed reactors.

Or they could try to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants, and make up some of the electricity deficit with Germany’s still-ample coal reserves.

Based on carbon emissions alone, you’d presumably go for the nuclear option. Coal is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, responsible for a fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions — more than any other single source — as well as a soup of conventional air pollutants. Nuclear power produces none of these.

German legislators saw it differently. Last week, the country’s parliament, with the backing of members of the Green Party in the coalition government, passed emergency legislation to reopen coal-powered plants, as well as further measures to boost the production of renewable energy. There would be no effort to restart closed nuclear power plants, or even consider a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout for the last active reactors.

“The gas storage tanks must be full by winter,” Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister and a member of the Green Party, said in June, echoing arguments that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue for the coming winter.

Partially as a result of that prioritization, Germany — which has already seen carbon emissions rise over the past two years, missing its ambitious emissions targets — will emit even more carbon in 2022.

To be fair, restarting closed nuclear power plants is a far more complex undertaking than lighting up old coal plants. Plant operators had only bought enough uranium to make it to the end of 2022, so nuclear fuel supplies are set to run out regardless.

But that’s also the point. Germany, which views itself as a global leader on climate, is grasping at the most carbon-intensive fuel source in part because it made the decision in 2011 to fully turn its back on nuclear for good at the time, enshrining what had been a planned phase-out into law.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

UK Clean Electricity Record as wind, solar, and biomass boost renewable energy output, slashing carbon emissions and wholesale power prices during lockdown, while lower demand challenges grid balancing and drives a drop to 153 g/kWh.

Key Points

A milestone where wind, solar and biomass lifted renewables, cutting carbon intensity to 153 g/kWh during lockdown.

✅ Carbon intensity averaged 153 g/kWh in Q2 2020.

✅ Renewables output rose 32% via wind, solar, biomass.

✅ Wholesale power prices slumped 42% amid lower demand.

U.K electricity has never been cleaner. As wind, solar and biomass plants produced more power than ever in the second quarter, with a new wind generation record set, carbon emissions fell by a third from a year earlier, according to Drax Electric Insight’s quarterly report. Power prices slumped 42 per cent as demand plunged during lockdown. Total renewable energy output jumped 32 per cent in the period, as wind became the main source of electricity at times.

“The past few months have given the country a glimpse into the future for our power system, with higher levels of renewable energy, as wind led the power mix, and lower demand making for a difficult balancing act,”said  Iain Staffell, from Imperial College London and lead author of the report.

The findings of the report point to the impact energy efficiency can have on reducing emissions, as coal's share fell to record lows across the electricity system. Millions of people furloughed or working from home and shuttered shops up and down the country resulted in daily electricity demand dropping about 10% and being about four gigawatts lower than expected in the three months through June.

Average carbon emissions fell to a new low of 153 grams per kWh of electricity consumed over the quarter, as coal-free generation records were extended, even though low-carbon generation stalled in 2019, according to the report.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Trump 2018 budget targets BPA transmission assets for sale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News