Sugarcane-based ethanol producing power

Inventoried Energy Program pays ISO-NE generators for fuel security to boost winter reliability, with FERC approval, covering fossil, nuclear, hydropower, and batteries, complementing capacity markets to enhance grid resilience during severe cold snaps.

Key Points

ISO-NE program paying generators to hold fuel or energy reserves for emergencies, boosting winter reliability.

✅ FERC-approved stopgap for 2023 and 2024 winter seasons

✅ Pays for on-site fuel or stored energy during cold-trigger events

✅ Open to fossil, nuclear, hydro, batteries; limited gas participation

Electricity ratepayers in New England will pay tens of millions of dollars to fossil fuel and nuclear power plants later this decade under a program that proponents say is needed to keep the lights on during severe winters but which critics call a subsidy with little benefit to consumers or the grid, even as Connecticut is pushing a market overhaul across the region.

Last week the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said ISO-New England, which runs the six-state power grid, can create what it calls the Inventoried Energy Program or IEP. This basically will pay certain power plants to stockpile of fuel for use in emergencies during two upcoming winters as longer-term solutions are developed.

The federal commission called it a reasonable short-term solution to avoid brownouts which doesn’t favor any given technology.

Not all agree, however, including FERC Commissioner Richard Glick, who wrote a fiery dissent to the other three commissioners.

“The program will hand out tens of millions of dollars to nuclear, coal and hydropower generators without any indication that those payments will cause the slightest change in those generators’ behavior,” Glick wrote. “Handing out money for nothing is a windfall, not a just and reasonable rate.”

The program is the latest reaction by ISO-NE to the winter of 2013-14 when New England almost saw brownouts because of a shortage of natural gas to create electricity during a pair of week-long deep freezes.

ISO-New England says the situation is more critical now because of the possible retirement of the gas-fired Mystic Generating Station in Massachusetts. As with closed nuclear plants such as Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim in Massachusetts, power plant owners say lower electricity prices, partly due to cheap renewables and partly to stagnant demand, means they can’t be profitable just by selling power.

Programs like the IEP are meant to subsidize such plants – “incentivize” is the industry term – even though some argue there is no need to subsidize nuclear in deregulated markets so they’ll stay open if they are needed.

The IEP approved last week will be applied to the winters of 2023 and 2024, after a different subsidy program expires. It sets prices, despite warnings about rushing pricing changes from industry groups, for stocking certain amounts of fuel and payments during any “trigger” event, defined as a day when the average of high and low temperatures at Bradley International Airport in Connecticut is no more than 17 degrees Fahrenheit.

These payments will be made on top of a complex system of grid auctions used to decide how much various plants get paid for generating electricity at which times.

ISO-NE estimates the new program will cost between $102 million and $148 million each winter, depending on weather and market conditions.

It says the payments are open to plants that burn oil, coal, nuclear fuel, wood chips or trash; utility-scale battery storage facilities; and hydropower dams “that store water in a pond or reservoir.” Natural gas plants can participate if they guarantee to have fuel available, but that seems less likely because of winter heating contracts.

A major complaint and groups that filed petitions opposing the project is that ISO-NE presented little supporting evidence of how prices, amount and overall cost were determined. ISO-NE argued that there wasn’t time for such analysis before the Mystic shutdown, and FERC agreed.

“The proposal is a step in the right direction … while ISO-NE finishes developing a long-term market solution,” the commission said in its ruling.

The program is the latest example of complexities facing the nation’s electricity system evolves in the face of solar and wind power, which produce electricity so cheaply that they can render traditional power uneconomic but which can’t always produce power on demand, prompting discussions of Texas grid improvements among policymakers. Another major factor is climate change, which has increased the pressure to support renewable alternatives to plants that burn fossil fuels, as well as stagnant electricity demand caused by increased efficiency.

Opponents, including many environmental groups, say electricity utilities and regulators are too quick to prop up existing systems, as the 145-mile Maine transmission line debate shows, built when electricity was sent one way from a few big plants to many customers. They argue that to combat climate change as well as limit cost, the emphasis must be on developing “non-wire alternatives” such as smart systems for controlling demand, in order to take advantage of the current system in which electricity goes two ways, such as from rooftop solar back into the grid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Toyota and Honda Moving e delivers hydrogen backup power via a fuel cell bus, portable batteries, and power exporters for disaster relief, emergency electricity, and grid outage support near charging stations and microgrids.

Key Points

A hydrogen mobile power system using a fuel cell bus and batteries to supply emergency electricity during disasters.

✅ Fuel cell bus outputs up to 18 kW, 454 kWh capacity

✅ Portable batteries and power exporter deliver site power

✅ Supports disaster relief near hydrogen charging stations

Without the uninterrupted supply of power and electricity, modern economies would be unable to function. A blackout can impact everything from transport to health care, communication, and even water supplies, as seen in a near-blackout in Japan that strained the grid. It is one of the key security concerns for every government on earth, a point underscored by Fatih Birol on electricity options during the pandemic, and the growth in the market for backup power reflects that fact. In 2018, the global Backup Power market was $14.9 billion and is expected to reach $22 billion by the end of 2025, growing at a CAGR of 5.0 percent between 2019 and 2025.

It is against this backdrop that Toyota and Honda have come up with a new and innovative solution to providing electricity during disasters. The two transport giants have launched a mobile power generation system that consists of a fuel cell bus that can carry a large amount of hydrogen, aligned with Japan's hydrogen energy system efforts underway, portable external power output devices, and portable batteries to disaster zones. The system, which is called ‘Moving e’ includes Toyota’s charging station fuel cell bus, Honda’s power exporter 9000 portable external power output device, two types of Honda’s portable batteries, and a Honda Mobile Power Pack Charge & Supply Concept charger/discharger for MPP. 

In simple terms, the bus would drive to a disaster zone, and while other approaches such as gravity energy storage are advancing, the portable batteries and power output devices would be used to extract electricity from the fuel cell bus and provide it wherever it is needed. The bus itself can generate 454kWh and has a maximum output of 18kW. That is more than enough energy to supply electricity for large indoor areas such as an evacuation area. The bus is also fitted with space for people to nap or rest during a disaster.

The two companies plan to test the effectiveness of the Moving e at multiple municipalities and businesses. These locations will have to be within 100km of a hydrogen station that is capable of refueling the bus. If the bus has to drive 200km, then its electricity supply to the disaster zone would drop from 490kwh to 240kWh. While there aren’t currently enough hydrogen stations to make this a realistic scenario for all disaster zones, especially as countries push for hydrogen-ready power plants in Germany and related infrastructure, hydrogen is growing increasingly competitive with gasoline and diesel.

While gas generators are still considered more reliable and generally cheaper than backup batteries for home use, cleaner backup power is growing increasingly popular, and novel storage like power-to-gas in Europe is also advancing across grids. This latest development by Toyota and Honda is another step forward for the battery and fuel cell industry, with initiatives like PEM hydrogen R&D in China accelerating progress, – especially considering the meteoric rise of hydrogen energy in recent years.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario Electricity Capacity Gap threatens reliability as IESO forecasts shortfalls from the Pickering shutdown and rapid electrification, requiring new low-emission nuclear generation to meet net-zero targets, maintain baseload, and stabilize the grid.

Key Points

Expected 2030 shortfalls from Pickering closure and electrification, requiring new low-emission nuclear to meet net-zero.

✅ IESO projects a 3.6-9.5 GW capacity gap by 2030

✅ Pickering shutdown removes baseload, stressing reliability

✅ New low-emission nuclear needed to meet net-zero targets

Ontario faces an electricity supply shortage and reliability risks in the next four to eight years and will not meet net-zero objectives without building new low-emission, nuclear generation starting as soon as possible, according to a report released yesterday by the Power Workers' Union (PWU). The capacity needed to fill the expected supply gap will be equivalent to doubling the province's planned nuclear fleet in eight years.

The planned closure of the Pickering nuclear power plant in 2025 and the increase in demand from electrification of the economy are the drivers behind a capacity gap in 2030 of at least 3.6 GW which could widen to as much as 9.5 GW, Electrification Pathways for Ontario to Reduce Emissions, finds. Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) has since 2013 been forecasting a significant gap in the province's electricity supply due the closure of Pickering, but has been underestimating the impact of electrification, the report says.

In addition, the electrification of buildings, transport and industry sectors that will be needed to achieve goals of net-zero emissions by 2050 that being set by the federal government and civil society will see the province's electricity demand increase by at least 130% over current planning forecasts, and potentially by over 190%. Leveraging electricity, natural gas and hydrogen synergies can reduce supply needs, but 55 GW of new electricity capacity, including new large-scale nuclear plants, will still be needed by 2050 - four times Ontario's current nuclear and hydro assets - the report finds.

These findings underscore the urgent need for a paradigm shift in Ontario's electricity planning and procurement process, the authors say, adding that immediate action is needed both to mitigate the system reliability risks and enable the significant societal benefits needed to pursue net-zero objectives. Planning for procurement to replace Pickering's capacity, or to pursue life extension options, must begin as soon as possible.

"Policymakers around the world realise climate change can't be tackled without nuclear. Ontario's nuclear fleet has delivered emissions reductions for over 50 years," PWU President Jeff Parnell said. "In fact, without building new nuclear units, Ontario will miss its emission reduction targets and carbon emissions from electricity generation will rise dramatically, as explored in why Ontario's power could get dirtier today."

"This report clearly shows that Ontario cannot sustain the low-carbon status of its hydro and nuclear-based electricity system, decarbonise its economy and meet its carbon reduction targets without new nuclear or continued operation at Pickering in the near term. Most disturbing is the fact that we are already well behind and needed to start planning for this capacity yesterday," he said.

The six operating Candu reactors at Ontario Power Generation's Pickering plant have been kept in operation to provide baseload electricity during the refurbishment of units at the Darlington and Bruce plants. Currently, the company plans to shut down Pickering units 1 and 4 in 2024 and units 5 to 8 in 2025, even as Ontario moves to refurbish Pickering B to extend life.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

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

Coinmint Plattsburgh Dispute spotlights cryptocurrency mining, hydropower electricity rates, a $1M security deposit, Public Service Commission rulings, municipal utility policies, and seasonal migration to Massena data centers as Bitcoin price volatility pressures operations.

Key Points

Legal and energy-cost dispute over crypto mining, a $1,019,503 deposit, and operations in Plattsburgh and Massena.

✅ PSC allows higher rates and requires large security deposits.

✅ Winter electricity spikes drove a $1M deposit calculation.

✅ Coinmint shifted capacity to Massena data centers.

A few years ago, there was a lot of buzz about the North Country becoming the next Silicon Valley of cryptocurrency, even as Maine debated a 145-mile line that could reshape regional power flows. One of the companies to flock here was Coinmint. The cryptomining company set up shop in Plattsburgh in 2017 and declared its intentions to be a good citizen.

Today, Coinmint is fighting a legal battle to avoid paying the city’s electric utility more than $1 million owed for a security deposit. In addition to that dispute, a local property manager says the firm was evicted from one of its Plattsburgh locations.

Companies like Coinmint chose to come to the North Country because of the relatively low electricity prices here, thanks in large part to the hydropower dam on the St. Lawrence River in Massena, and regionally, projects such as the disputed electricity corridor have drawn attention to transmission costs and access. Coinmint operates its North Country Data Center facilities in Plattsburgh and Massena. In both locations, racks of computer servers perform complex calculations to generate cryptocurrency, such as bitcoin.

When cryptomining began to take off in Plattsburgh, the cost of one bitcoin was skyrocketing. That brought hype around the possibility of big business and job creation in the North Country. But cryptomininers like Coinmint were using massive amounts of energy in the winter of 2017-2018, and that season, electric bills of everyday Plattsburgh residents spiked.

Many cryptomining firms operate in a state of flux, beholden to the price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, even as the end to the 'war on coal' declaration did little to change utilities' choices. When the price of one bitcoin hit $20,000 in 2017, it fell by 30% just days later. That’s one reason why the price of electricity is so critical for companies like Coinmint to turn a profit. 

Plattsburgh puts the brakes on “cryptocurrency mining”
In early 2018, Plattsburgh passed a moratorium on cryptocurrency mining operations, after residents complained of higher-than-usual electric bills.

“Your electric bill’s $100, then it’s at $130. Why? It’s because these guys that are mining the bitcoins are riding into town, taking advantage of a situation,” said resident Andrew Golt during a 2018 public hearing.

Coinmint aimed to assuage the worries of residents and other businesses. “At the end of the day we want to be a good citizen in whatever communities we’re in,” Coinmint spokesman Kyle Carlton told NCPR at that 2018 meeting.

“We’re open to working with those communities to figure out whatever solutions are going to work.”

The ban was lifted in Feb. 2019. However, since it didn’t apply to companies that were already mining cryptocurrency in Plattsburgh, Coinmint has operated in the city all along.

Coinmint challenges attempt to protect ratepayers
New rules passed by the New York Public Service Commission in March 2018 allow municipal power authorities including Plattsburgh’s to charge big energy users such as Coinmint higher electricity rates, amid customer backlash in other utility deals. The new rules also require them to put down a security deposit to ensure their bills get paid.

But Coinmint disputes that deposit charge. The company has been embroiled in a legal fight for nearly a year against Plattsburgh Municipal Lighting Department (PMLD) in an attempt to avoid paying the electric utility’s security deposit bill of $1,019,503. That bill is based on an estimate of what would cover two months of electricity use if a company were to leave town without paying its electric bills.

Coinmint would not discuss the dispute on the record with NCPR. Legal documents show the firm argues the deposit charge is inflated, based on a flawed calculation resulting in a charge hundreds of thousands of dollars higher than what it should be.

“Essentially they’re arguing that they should only have to put up some average of their monthly bills without accounting for the fact that winter bills are significantly higher than the average,” said Ken Podolny, an attorney representing the Plattsburgh utility.

The company took legal action in February 2019 against PMLD in the hopes New York’s energy regulator, the Public Service Commission, would agree with Coinmint that the deposit charge was too high. An informal commission hearing officer disagreed, and ruled in October the charge was calculated correctly.

Coinmint appealed the ruling in November and a hearing on the appeal could come as soon as February.

Less than a week after Coinmint lost its initial challenge of the deposit charge, the company made a splashy announcement trumpeting its plans to “migrate its Plattsburgh, New York infrastructure to its Massena, New York location for the 2019-2020 winter season.”

The announcement made no mention of the appeal or the recent ruling against Coinmint. The company attributed its new plan to “exceptionally-high” electricity rates in Plattsburgh, as hydropower transmission projects elsewhere in New England faced their own controversies. 

"We recognize some in the Plattsburgh community have blamed our operation for pushing rates higher for everyone so, while we disagree with that assessment, we hope this seasonal migration will have a positive impact on rates for all our neighbors,” said Coinmint cofounder Prieur Leary in the press statement.

“In the event that doesn't happen, we trust the community will look for the real answers for these high costs." Prieur Leary has since been removed from the corporate team page on the company’s website.

The company still operates in Plattsburgh at one of its locations in the city. As for staff, while at least two Coinmint employees have moved from Plattsburgh to Massena, where the company operates a data center inside a former Alcoa aluminum plant, it is unclear how many people in total have made the move.

Coinmint left its second Plattsburgh location in 2019. The company would not discuss that move on the record, yet the circumstances of the departure are murky.

The local property manager of the industrial park site told NCPR, “I have no comment on our evicted tenant Coinmint.” The property owner, California’s Karex Property Management Services, also would not comment regarding the situation, noting that “all staff have been told to not discuss anything regarding our past tenant Coinmint.”

Today, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are worth a fraction of what they were back in 2017 when Coinmint came to the North Country, and now, amid a debate over Bitcoin's electricity use shaping market sentiment, the future of the entire industry here remains uncertain.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News