Spanish company plans New Mexico solar plant

Philippsburg Demolition Delay: EnBW postpones controlled cooling-tower blasts amid the coronavirus pandemic, affecting decommissioning timelines in Baden-Wurttemberg and grid expansion for a transformer station to route renewable power and secure supply in southern Germany.

Key Points

EnBW's COVID-19 delay of Philippsburg cooling-tower blasts, affecting decommissioning and grid plans.

✅ Controlled detonation shifted to mid-May at earliest

✅ Demolition links to transformer station for north-south grid

✅ Supports security of supply in southern Germany

German energy company EnBW said the coronavirus outbreak has impacted plans to dismantle its Philippsburg nuclear power plant in Baden-Wurttemberg, southwest Germany, amid plans to phase out coal and nuclear nationally.

The controlled detonation of Phillipsburg's cooling towers will now take place in mid-May at the earliest, subject to coordination as Germany debates whether to reconsider its nuclear phaseout in light of supply needs.

However, EnBW said the exact demolition date depends on many factors - including the further development in the coronavirus pandemic and ongoing climate policy debates about energy choices.

Philippsburg 2, a 1402MWe pressurised water reactor unit permanently shut down on 31 December 2019, as part of Germany's broader effort to shut down its remaining reactors over time.

At the end of 2019, the Ministry of the Environment gave basic approval for decommissioning and dismantling of unit 2 of the Philippsburg nuclear power plant, inluding explosive demolition of the colling towers. Since then EnBW has worked intensively on getting all the necessary formal steps on the way and performing technical and logistical preparatory work, even as discussions about a potential nuclear resurgence continue nationwide.

“The demolition of the cooling towers is directly related to future security of supply in southern Germany. We therefore feel obliged to drive this project forward," said Jörg Michels head of the EnBW nuclear power division.

The timely removal of the cooling towers is important as the area currently occupied by nuclear plant components is needed for a transformer station for long-distance power lines, an issue underscored during the energy crisis when Germany temporarily extended nuclear power to bolster supply. These will transport electricity from renewable sources in the north to industrial centres in the south.

As of early 2020, there six nuclear reactors in operation in Germany, even as the country turned its back on nuclear in subsequent years. According to research institute Fraunhofer ISE, nuclear power provided about 14% of Germany's net electricity in 2019, less than half of the figure for 2000.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BCER Renewable Energy Permitting streamlines single-window approvals for wind, solar, and transmission projects in BC, cutting red tape, aligning with CleanBC, and accelerating investment, Indigenous partnerships, and low-carbon infrastructure growth provincewide.

Key Points

BC's single-window framework consolidates approvals for wind, solar, and transmission to accelerate energy projects.

✅ Single-window permits via BC Energy Regulator (BCER)

✅ Covers wind, solar, and high-voltage transmission lines

✅ Aligns with CleanBC, supports Indigenous partnerships

In a decisive move to bolster clean energy initiatives, the government of British Columbia (B.C.) has announced plans to overhaul the regulatory framework governing renewable energy projects. This initiative aims to expedite the development of wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources, positioning B.C. as a leader in sustainable energy production.

Transitioning Regulatory Authority to the BC Energy Regulator (BCER)

Central to this strategy is the proposed legislation, set to be introduced in spring 2025, which will transfer the permitting and regulatory oversight of renewable energy projects, aligning with offshore wind regulation plans at the federal level, from multiple agencies to the BC Energy Regulator (BCER). This transition is designed to create a "single-window" permitting process, simplifying approvals and reducing bureaucratic delays for developers.

Expanding BCER's Mandate

Historically known as the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission, the BCER's mandate has evolved to encompass a broader range of energy projects. The upcoming legislation will empower the BCER to oversee renewable energy projects, including wind and solar, as well as high-voltage transmission lines like the North Coast Transmission Line (NCTL), in step with renewable transmission planning efforts elsewhere in North America. This expansion aims to streamline the regulatory process, providing developers with a single point of contact throughout the project lifecycle.

Economic and Environmental Implications

The restructuring is expected to unlock significant economic opportunities. Projections suggest that the streamlined process could attract between $5 billion and $6 billion in private investment and complement recent federal grid modernization funding initiatives, generating employment opportunities and fostering economic growth. Moreover, by facilitating the rapid deployment of renewable energy projects, B.C. aims to enhance its clean energy capacity, contributing to global sustainability goals.

Strengthening Partnerships with Indigenous Communities

A pivotal aspect of this initiative is the emphasis on collaboration with Indigenous communities. The government has highlighted the importance of engaging First Nations in the development process, ensuring that projects are not only environmentally sustainable but also socially responsible. This approach seeks to honor Indigenous rights and knowledge, fostering partnerships that benefit all stakeholders.

Supporting Infrastructure Development

The acceleration of renewable energy projects necessitates corresponding infrastructure enhancements. The NCTL, for instance, is crucial for meeting the increased electricity demand from sectors such as mining, port electrification, and hydrogen production, and for addressing regional grid constraints that limit renewable integration. By improving the transmission infrastructure, B.C. aims to support the growing energy needs of these industries while promoting clean energy solutions.

Aligning with CleanBC Objectives

This regulatory overhaul aligns seamlessly with B.C.'s CleanBC initiative, which sets ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting energy efficiency, and supports Canada's goal of zero-emissions electricity by 2035 under active consideration. By removing regulatory barriers and expediting project approvals, the government aims to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy, positioning B.C. as a hub for clean energy innovation.

Addressing Potential Challenges

While the initiative has been lauded for its potential, experts caution that careful consideration must be given to environmental assessments and Indigenous consultation processes, as well as to lessons from Alberta's solar expansion challenges on land use and grid impacts. Ensuring that projects meet environmental standards and respect Indigenous rights is crucial for the long-term success and acceptance of renewable energy developments.

The proposed changes mark a significant shift in B.C.'s approach to energy development, reflecting a commitment to sustainability and economic growth. As the legislation moves through the legislative process, stakeholders across the energy sector are closely monitoring developments, particularly as Alberta ends its renewables moratorium and resumes project approvals across the Prairies, anticipating a more efficient and transparent regulatory environment that supports the rapid expansion of renewable energy projects.

B.C.'s plan to streamline the regulatory process for clean energy projects represents a bold step toward a sustainable and prosperous energy future. By consolidating regulatory authority under the BCER, fostering Indigenous partnerships, and aligning with broader environmental objectives, the province is setting a precedent for effective governance in the transition to renewable energy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Miami Valley Windstorm Power Outages disrupted thousands as 60 mph gusts toppled trees, downed power lines, and damaged buildings. Utility crews and emergency services managed debris, while NWS alerts warned of extended restoration.

Key Points

Region-wide power losses from severe winds in the Miami Valley, causing damage, debris, and restoration.

✅ 60 mph gusts downed trees, snapped lines, blocked roads

✅ Crews from DP&L worked extended shifts to restore service

✅ NWS issued wind advisories; schools, businesses closed

On a recent day, powerful winds tore through the Miami Valley, causing significant disruption across the region. The storm, which was accompanied by gusts reaching dangerous speeds, led to windstorm power outages affecting thousands of homes and businesses. As trees fell and power lines were snapped, many residents found themselves without electricity for hours, and in some cases, even days.

The high winds, which were part of a larger weather system moving through the area, left a trail of destruction in their wake. In addition to power outages, there were reports of storm damage to buildings, vehicles, and other structures. The force of the wind uprooted trees, some of which fell on homes and vehicles, causing significant property damage. While the storm did not result in any fatalities, the destruction was widespread, with many communities experiencing debris-filled streets and blocked roads.

Utility companies in the Miami Valley, including Dayton Power & Light, quickly mobilized crews, similar to FPL's storm response in major events, to begin restoring power to the affected areas. However, the high winds presented a challenge for repair crews, as downed power lines and damaged equipment made restoration efforts more difficult. Many customers were left waiting for hours or even days for their power to be restored, and some neighborhoods were still experiencing outages several days after the storm had passed.

In response to the severe weather, local authorities issued warnings to residents, urging them to stay indoors and avoid unnecessary travel. Wind gusts of up to 60 miles per hour were reported, making driving hazardous, particularly on bridges and overpasses, similar to Quebec windstorm outages elsewhere. The National Weather Service also warned of the potential for further storm activity, advising people to remain vigilant as the system moved eastward.

The impact of the storm was felt not only in terms of power outages but also in the strain it placed on emergency services. With trees blocking roads and debris scattered across the area, first responders were required to work quickly and efficiently to clear paths and assist those in need. Many residents were left without heat, refrigeration, and in some cases, access to medical equipment that relied on electricity.

Local schools and businesses were also affected by the storm. Many schools had to cancel classes, either due to power outages or because roads were impassable. Businesses, particularly those in the retail and service sectors, faced disruptions in their operations as they struggled to stay open without power amid extended outages that lingered, or to address damage caused by fallen trees and debris.

In the aftermath of the storm, Miami Valley residents are working to clean up and assess the damage. Many homeowners are left dealing with the aftermath of tree removal, property repairs, and other challenges. Meanwhile, local governments are focusing on restoring infrastructure, as seen after Toronto's spring storm outages in recent years, and ensuring that the power grid is secured to prevent further outages.

While the winds have died down and conditions have improved, the storm’s impact will be felt for weeks to come, reflecting Florida's weeks-long restorations after severe storms. The region will continue to recover from the damage, but the event serves as a reminder of the power of nature and the resilience of communities in the face of adversity. For residents affected by the power outages, recovery will require patience as utility crews and local authorities work tirelessly to restore normalcy.

Looking ahead, experts are urging residents to prepare for the next storm season by ensuring that they have emergency kits, backup generators, and contingency plans in place. As climate change contributes to more extreme weather events, it is likely that storms of this magnitude will become more frequent. By taking steps to prepare in advance, communities across the Miami Valley can better handle whatever challenges come next.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

EU Renewable Energy Transition is accelerating under REPowerEU, as wind and solar generation hit records, improving energy security, efficiency, and decarbonization while reducing reliance on Russian fossil fuels across the EU grid.

Key Points

EU shift to wind and solar under REPowerEU to cut fossil fuels, boost efficiency, and secure energy supply.

✅ Wind and solar set record 22% of EU electricity in 2022

✅ REPowerEU targets over 40% renewables and 15% lower demand by 2030

✅ Diversifies away from Russian fuels; partners with US and Norway

Europe is producing all-time highs of wind and solar energy as the 27-country group works to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels from Russia, a shift underscored by Europe's green surge across the bloc.

Four months after Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the European Commission launched REPowerEU. This campaign aims to:

• Boost the use of renewable energy.
• Reduce overall energy consumption.
• Diversify energy sources.

EU countries were already moving toward renewable energy, but Russia’s war against Ukraine accelerated that trend. In 2022, for the first time, renewables surpassed fossil fuels and wind and solar power surpassed gas as a source of electricity. Wind and solar provided a record-breaking 22% of EU countries’ electrical supply, according to London-based energy think tank Ember.

“We have to double down on investments in home-grown renewables,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in October 2022. “Not only for the climate but also because the transition to the clean energy is the best way to gain independence and to have security of energy supply.”

Across the continent, growth in solar generation rose by 25% in 2022, according to Ember, as solar reshapes electricity prices in Northern Europe. Twenty EU countries produced their highest share of solar power in 2022. In October, Greece ran entirely on renewables for several hours and is seven years ahead of schedule for its 2030 solar capacity target.

Meanwhile, Ireland's green electricity target aims to make more than a third of its power supply renewable within four years.

By 2030, RePowerEU aims to provide more than 40% of the EU’s total power from renewables, aligning with global renewable records being shattered worldwide.

To meet the European Commission’s goal to cut EU energy usage by 15%, people and governments changed their habits and became more energy-efficient, while Germany's solar power boost helped bolster supply. Among their actions:

• Germany turned down the heat in public buildings and lowered the cost of train tickets to reduce car usage, as clean energy hit 50% in Germany during this period.
• Spain ordered stores and public buildings to turn off their lights at night.
• France dimmed the Eiffel Tower and reduced city speed limits.

For the oil and gas that the EU still needed to import, countries turned to partners such as Norway and the United States.

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

PG&E Bankruptcy Plan outlines wildfire victims compensation via a $13.5B trust funded by cash and stock, aiming CPUC and court approval before June 30 to access the state wildfire insurance fund and finalize settlement.

Key Points

A regulator-approved plan funding a $13.5B wildfire victims trust with cash and PG&E stock to exit bankruptcy.

✅ $13.5B trust split between cash and PG&E shares

✅ Targets CPUC and court approval to meet June 30 deadline

✅ Accesses state wildfire insurance fund for future risks

Pacific Gas & Electric's plan for getting out of bankruptcy has won overwhelming support from the victims of deadly Northern California wildfires ignited by the utility's fraying electrical grid, while some have pursued mega-fire lawsuits through the courts as well, despite concerns that they will be shortchanged by a $13.5 billion fund that's supposed to cover their losses.

The company announced the preliminary results of the vote on Monday without providing a specific tally. Those numbers are supposed to be filed with U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali by Friday.

The backing of the wildfire victims keeps PG&E on track to meet a June 30 deadline to emerge from bankruptcy in time to qualify for a coverage from a California wildfire insurance fund created to help protect the utility from getting into financial trouble again.

The current bankruptcy case, which began early last year, will require PG&E to pay out about $25.5 billion to cover the devastation caused by its neglect, including a Camp Fire guilty plea that underscored liabilities in court proceedings. It's the second time in less than 20 years that PG&E has filed for bankruptcy.

The backing for PG&E's plan isn't a surprise, even though some of the roughly 80,000 wildfire victims had been trying to rally resistance to what they consider to be a deeply flawed plan. The misgivings mostly center on the massive debt that the utility will take on to finance the plan and uncertainties about the fluctuating value of the $6.75 billion in company stock that comprises half of the $13.5 billion promised them.

As it became apparent that the COVID-19 pandemic would drive the economy into a deep recession, PG&E's shares plunged along with the rest of the stock market during March, even as it announced pandemic response measures for customers and employees during that period. That led one financial expert to estimate the PG&E stock earmarked for the wildfire victims' trust would be worth only $4.85 billion, a nearly 30% markdown.

But PG&E's stock price has rebounded in recent weeks and it's now worth more than it was when the deal setting up the victims' trust was struck last December. The shares surged more than 8% to $12.28 in Monday's late afternoon trading. The stock stood at $9.65 when PG&E reached its settlement the wildfire victims.

Critics of the utility's plan also are upset because the company still hasn't specified when the fire victims will be able to sell the shares. It now seems likely the victims will have to hold the stock through the upcoming wildfire season in Northern California, raising the specter that another calamity caused by the utility's badly outdated equipment, as power line fire reports have underscored, could cause the shares to plummet before they can cash out.

A petition signed by more than 3,100 wildfire victims recently urged Gov. Gavin Newsom to consider pushing back the deadline for qualifying for the state's wildfire from June 30 to late August to allow for more time to revise PG&E's plan, as many also turn to a wildfire assistance program for interim aid while they wait. Newsom's office hasn't responded to inquiry about the plan from The Associated Press.

But the lawyers representing the wildfire victims advised their clients to vote in favor of PG&E's plan, contending that it's the best deal they are going to get.

PG&E still must get its plan approved by the judge supervising its case, and a recent judge order on dividend use underscores the focus on wildfire mitigation. The confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin May 27. The judge, though, has indicated he will give great weight to the wishes of the wildfire victims.

California state regulators also must approve PG&E's plan, amid projections that rates will stabilize in 2025 for customers. A vote on that is scheduled Thursday before the Public Utilities Commission.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News