Future of Vermont Yankee looks bleak

Northern Ireland No-Deal Power Contingency outlines Whitehall plans to deploy thousands of generators on barges in the Irish Sea, safeguard the electricity market, and avert blackouts if Brexit disrupts imports from the Republic of Ireland.

Key Points

A UK Whitehall plan to prevent NI blackouts by deploying generators and protecting cross-border electricity flows.

✅ Barges in Irish Sea to host temporary power generators

✅ Mitigates loss of EU market access in a no-deal Brexit

✅ Ensures NI supply if Republic cuts electricity exports

Such a scenario could see thousands of electricity generators being requisitioned at short notice and positioned on barges in the Irish Sea, even as Great Britain's generation mix shapes wider supply dynamics, to help keep the region going, a Whitehall document quoted by the Financial Times states.

An emergency operation could see equipment being brought back from places like Afghanistan, where the UK still has a military presence, the newspaper said.

The extreme situation could arise because Northern Ireland shares a single energy market with the Irish Republic, where Irish grid price spikes have heightened concern about stability.

The region relies on energy imports from the Republic because it does not have enough generating capacity itself, and the UK is aiming to negotiate a deal to allow that single electricity market on the island of Ireland to continue post-EU withdrawal, while virtual power plant proposals for UK homes are explored to avoid outages, the FT stated.

However, if no Brexit deal is agreed Whitehall fears suppliers in the Irish Republic could cut off power because the UK would no longer be part of the European electricity market, and a recent short supply warning from National Grid underscores the risk.

In a bid to prevent blackouts in Northern Ireland in a worse case situation the Government would need to put thousands of generators into place, even as an emergency energy plan has reportedly not gone ahead nationwide, according to the report.

And officials fear they may need to commandeer some generators from the military in such a scenario, the FT reports.

An official was quoted by the newspaper as saying the preparations were “gob-smacking”.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Nova Scotia Biomass Energy faces scrutiny as hydropower from Muskrat Falls via the Maritime Link increases, raising concerns over carbon emissions, biodiversity, ratepayer costs, and efficiency versus district heating in the province's renewable mix.

Key Points

Electricity from wood chips and waste wood in Nova Scotia, increasingly questioned as hydropower from the Maritime Link grows.

✅ Hydropower deliveries reduce need for biomass on the grid

✅ Biomass is inefficient, costly, and impacts biodiversity

✅ District heating offers better use of forestry residuals

The Ecology Action Centre's senior wilderness coordinator is calling on the Nova Scotia government to reduce the use of biomass to generate electricity now that more hydroelectric power is flowing into the province.

In 2020, the government of the day signed a directive for Nova Scotia Power to increase its use of biomass to generate electricity, including burning more wood chips, waste wood and other residuals from the forest industry. At the time, power from Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project in Labrador was not flowing into the province at high enough levels to reach provincial targets for electricity generated by renewable resources.

In recent months, however, the Maritime Link from Muskrat Falls has delivered Nova Scotia's full share of electricity, and, in some cases, even more, as the province also pursues Bay of Fundy tides projects to diversify supply.

Ray Plourde with the Ecology Action Centre said that should be enough to end the 2020 directive.

Ray Plourde is senior wilderness coordinator for the Ecology Action Centre. (CBC)
Biomass is "bad on a whole lot of levels," said Plourde, including its affects on biodiversity and the release of carbon into the atmosphere, he said. The province's reliance on waste wood as a source of fuel for electricity should be curbed, said Plourde.

"It's highly inefficient," he said. "It's the most expensive electricity on the power grid for ratepayers."

A spokesperson for the provincial Natural Resources and Renewables Department said that although the Maritime Link has "at times" delivered adequate electricity to Nova Scotia, "it hasn't done so consistently," a context that has led some to propose an independent planning body for long-term decisions.

"These delays and high fossil fuel prices mean that biomass remains a small but important component of our renewable energy mix," Patricia Jreiga said in an email, even as the province plans to increase wind and solar projects in the years ahead.

But to Plourde, that explanation doesn't wash.

The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board recently ruled that Nova Scotia Power could begin recouping costs of the Maritime Link project from ratepayers. As for the rising cost of fossil fuels, Ploude noted that the inefficiency of biomass means there's no deal to be had using it as a fuel source.

"Honestly, that sounds like a lot of obfuscation," he said of the government's position.

No update on district heating plans
At the time of the directive, government officials said the increased use of forestry byproducts at biomass plants in Point Tupper and Brooklyn, N.S., including the nearby Port Hawkesbury Paper mill, would provide a market for businesses struggling to replace the loss of Northern Pulp as a customer. Brooklyn Power has been offline since a windstorm damaged that plant in February, however. Repairs are expected to be complete by the end of the year or early 2023.

Ploude said a better use for waste wood products would be small-scale district heating projects, while others advocate using more electricity for heat in cold regions.

Although the former Liberal government announced six public buildings to serve as pilot sites for district heating in 2020, and a list of 100 other possible buildings that could be converted to wood heat, there have been no updates.

"Currently, we're working with several other departments to complete technical assessments for additional sites and looking at opportunities for district heating, but no decisions have been made yet," provincial spokesperson Steven Stewart said in an email.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Canada Net-Zero Electricity Buildout will double or triple power capacity, scaling clean energy, renewables, nuclear, hydro, and grid transmission, with faster permitting, Indigenous consultation, and trillions in investment to meet 2035 non-emitting regulations.

Key Points

A national plan to rapidly expand clean, non-emitting power and grid capacity to enable a net-zero economy by 2050.

✅ Double to triple generation; all sources non-emitting by 2035

✅ Accelerate permitting, transmission, and Indigenous partnerships

✅ Trillions in investment; cross-jurisdictional coordination

Canada must build more electricity generation in the next 25 years than it has over the last century in order to support a net-zero emissions economy by 2050, says a new report from the Public Policy Forum.

Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and shifting to emissions-free electricity, as provinces such as Ontario pursue new wind and solar to ease a supply crunch, to propel our cars, heat our homes and run our factories will require doubling — possibly tripling — the amount of power we make now, the federal government estimates.

"Imagine every dam, turbine, nuclear plant and solar panel across Canada and then picture a couple more next to them," said the report, which will be published Wednesday.

It's going to cost a lot, and in Ontario, greening the grid could cost $400 billion according to one report. Most estimates are in the trillions.

It's also going to require the kind of cross-jurisdictional co-operation, with lessons from Europe's power crisis underscoring the stakes, Indigenous consultation and swift decision-making and construction that Canada just isn't very good at, the report said.

"We have a date with destiny," said Edward Greenspon, president of the Public Policy Forum. "We need to build, build, build. We're way behind where we need to be and we don't have a lot of a lot of time remaining."

Later this summer, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault will publish new regulations to require that all power be generated from non-emitting sources by 2035 clean electricity goals, as proposed.

Greenspon said that means there are two major challenges ahead: massively expanding how much power we make and making all of it clean, even though some natural gas generation will be permitted under federal rules.

On average, it takes more than four years just to get a new electricity generating project approved by Ottawa, and more than three years for new transmission lines.

That's before a single shovel touches any dirt.

Building these facilities is another thing, and provinces such as Ontario face looming electricity shortfalls as projects drag on. The Site C dam in British Columbia won't come on line until 2025 and has been under construction since 2015. A new transmission line from northern Manitoba to the south took more than 11 years from the first proposal to operation.

"We need to move very quickly, and probably with a different approach ... no hurdles, no timeouts," Greenspon said.

There are significant unanswered questions about the new power mix, and the pace at which Canada moves away from fossil fuel power is one of the biggest political issues facing the country, with debates over whether scrapping coal-fired electricity is cost-effective still unresolved.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Biden Clean Energy Plan 2035 accelerates carbon-free electricity with renewables, nuclear, hydropower, and biomass, invests $2T in EVs, grid and energy efficiency, and tightens fuel economy standards beyond the Clean Power Plan.

Key Points

A $2T U.S. climate plan for carbon-free power by 2035, boosting renewables, nuclear, EVs, efficiency, and grid upgrades.

✅ Targets a zero-carbon electric grid nationwide by 2035

✅ Includes renewables, nuclear, hydropower, and biomass in standard

✅ Funds EVs, grid modernization, weatherization, and fuel economy rules

This month the Democratic presumptive presidential nominee, Joe Biden, outlined an ambitious plan, including Biden’s solar plan to expand clean energy, for tackling climate change that shows how far the party has shifted on the issue since it controlled the White House.

President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan had called for the electricity sector to cut its carbon pollution 32 percent by 2030, and did not lay out a trajectory for phasing out oil, coal or natural gas production.

This year, Democratic 2020 hopefuls such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) went much further, suggesting the United States should derive all of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030, moving to 100% renewables as part of a $16.3 trillion plan to wean the nation away from fossil fuels. Many other congressional Democrats have embraced the Green New Deal — the nonbinding resolution calling for a carbon-free power sector by 2030 and more energy efficient buildings and vehicles, along with a massive investment in electric vehicles and high-speed rail.

Last year, 38 percent of U.S. electricity generated came from clean sources, according to a Washington Post analysis of data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and in April renewables hit a record 28% nationwide.

Biden’s new plan, which carries a price tag of $2 trillion, would eliminate carbon emissions from the electric sector by 2035, impose stricter gas mileage standards, fund investments to weatherize millions of homes and commercial buildings, and upgrade the nation’s transportation system. To reach its 2035 carbon-free electricity goal, the campaign includes wind, solar and several forms of energy, acknowledging why the grid isn’t yet 100% renewable while balancing reliability, that are not always counted in state renewable portfolio standards, such as nuclear, hydropower and biomass.

“A great appeal of the Biden proposal is that it is much closer to targeting carbon directly, which is the ultimate enemy, and plays fewer favorites with particular technologies,” said Michael Greenstone, who directs the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute. “This will reduce the costs to consumers and give more carbon bang for the buck.”

But some environmentalists, such as Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica, question the idea of including more controversial carbon-free technologies. “There is no role for nuclear in a least-cost, low carbon world. Including these dinosaurs in a clean energy standard is going to incentivize industry efforts to keep aging, dangerous facilities online,” Pica said in an email.

Hydropower, which relies on a system of moving water that constantly recharges, is defined as renewable by the Environmental Protection Agency. Biomass is often considered as carbon neutral because even though it releases carbon dioxide when it is burned, the plants capture nearly the same amount of CO2 while growing.

Both forms of energy have come under fire for their environmental impacts, however. Damming streams and rivers can destroy fish habitat and make it more difficult for them to spawn, and it also seems unlikely that hydropower will expand its current 6 percent share of the nation’s electrical grid.

Many experts argue that classifying biomass energy as carbon neutral provides an incentive to cut down trees that would otherwise remain standing and sequester carbon. “If burning this wood were good for the climate, then we should not recycle paper, we should burn it,” noted Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs.

Illinois lead the nation in the amount of electricity generated from nuclear power

More than half of the country — 30 states, Washington, and three territories — have adopted a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and seven states and one territory have set renewable energy goals. While 14 states, along with the District, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, have established requirements of 50 percent or more carbon-free electricity, nearly as many have set theirs at 15 percent or less.

Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D), who has called for 100% renewable electricity in the state, has pushed clean electricity aggressively since taking office in 2019, lifting a wind energy moratorium imposed by her predecessor and signing bills aimed at expanding the state’s carbon-free energy sources. Biomass accounts for a quarter of the state’s electricity, more than any other state.

New York has one of the country’s most ambitious climate targets, which it scaled up last year. It aims to obtain 70 percent of its power from renewable sources within a decade, a period when renewables surpassed coal in U.S. generation, and eliminate carbon altogether by 2040, even as the state is in the process of shutting down a major nuclear plant near New York City, Indian Point, which is slated to cease operating on April 30, 2021.

... while other states are weakening theirs

Last year, Ohio weakened its renewable energy standard from a target of 12.5 percent in 2027 to 8.5 percent by 2026, even as renewables topped coal nationwide for the first time in over a century, without setting any future goals, and jettisoned its energy efficiency standard. West Virginia — which established modest renewable requirements in 2009 — repealed them altogether in 2015, the year they were set to take effect.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

U.S. Energy Dominance envisions deregulation, oil and gas growth, LNG exports, pipelines, and geopolitical leverage, while facing OPEC pricing power, infrastructure bottlenecks, climate policy pressures, and accelerating renewables in global markets.

Key Points

U.S. policy to grow fossil fuel output and exports via deregulation, bolstering energy security, geopolitical influence.

✅ Deregulation to expand drilling, pipelines, and export capacity

✅ Exposed to OPEC pricing, global shocks, and cost competitiveness

✅ Faces infrastructure, ESG finance, and renewables transition risks

Former President Donald Trump has consistently advocated for “energy dominance” as a cornerstone of his energy policy. In his vision, the United States would leverage its abundant natural resources to achieve energy self-sufficiency, flood global markets with cheap energy, and undercut competitors like Russia and OPEC nations. However, while the rhetoric resonates with many Americans, particularly those in energy-producing states, the pursuit of energy dominance faces significant real-world challenges that could limit its feasibility and impact.

The Energy Dominance Vision

Trump’s energy dominance strategy revolves around deregulation, increased domestic production of oil and gas, and the rollback of climate-oriented restrictions. During his presidency, he emphasized opening federal lands to drilling, accelerating the approval of pipelines, and, through an executive order, boosting uranium and nuclear energy initiatives, as well as withdrawing from international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord. The goal was not only to meet domestic energy demands but also to establish the U.S. as a major exporter of fossil fuels, thereby reducing reliance on foreign energy sources.

This approach gained traction during Trump’s first term, with the U.S. achieving record levels of oil and natural gas production. Energy exports surged, making the U.S. a net energy exporter for the first time in decades. Yet, critics argue that this policy prioritizes short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability, while supporters believe it provides a roadmap for energy security and geopolitical leverage.

Market Realities

The energy market is complex, influenced by factors beyond the control of any single administration, with energy crisis impacts often cascading across sectors. While the U.S. has significant reserves of oil and gas, the global market sets prices. Even if the U.S. ramps up production, it cannot insulate itself entirely from price shocks caused by geopolitical instability, OPEC production cuts, or natural disasters.

For instance, despite record production in the late 2010s, American consumers faced volatile gasoline prices during an energy crisis driven by $5 gas and external factors like tensions in the Middle East and fluctuating global demand. Additionally, the cost of production in the U.S. is often higher than in countries with more easily accessible reserves, such as Saudi Arabia. This limits the competitive advantage of U.S. energy producers in global markets.

Infrastructure and Environmental Concerns

A major obstacle to achieving energy dominance is infrastructure. Expanding oil and gas production requires investments in pipelines, export terminals, and refineries. However, these projects often face delays due to regulatory hurdles, legal challenges, and public opposition. High-profile pipeline projects like Keystone XL and Dakota Access have become battlegrounds between industry proponents and environmental activists, and cross-border dynamics such as support for Canadian energy projects amid tariff threats further complicate permitting, highlighting the difficulty of reconciling energy expansion with environmental and community concerns.

Moreover, the transition to cleaner energy sources is accelerating globally, with many countries committing to net-zero emissions targets. This trend could reduce the demand for fossil fuels in the long run, potentially leaving U.S. producers with stranded assets if global markets shift more quickly than anticipated.

Geopolitical Implications

Trump’s energy dominance strategy also hinges on the belief that U.S. energy exports can weaken adversaries like Russia and Iran. While increased American exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe have reduced the continent’s reliance on Russian gas, achieving total energy independence for allies is a monumental task. Europe’s energy infrastructure, designed for pipeline imports from Russia, cannot be overhauled overnight to accommodate LNG shipments.

Additionally, the influence of major producers like Saudi Arabia and the OPEC+ alliance remains significant, even as shifts in U.S. policy affect neighbors; in Canada, some viewed Biden as better for the energy sector than alternatives. These countries can adjust production levels to influence prices, sometimes undercutting U.S. efforts to expand its market share.

The Renewable Energy Challenge

The growing focus on renewable energy adds another layer of complexity. Solar, wind, and battery storage technologies are becoming increasingly cost-competitive with fossil fuels. Many U.S. states and private companies are investing heavily in clean energy to align with consumer preferences and global trends, amid arguments that stepping away from fossil fuels can bolster national security. This shift could dampen the domestic demand for oil and gas, challenging the long-term viability of Trump’s energy dominance agenda.

Moreover, international pressure to address climate change could limit the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. Financial institutions and investors are increasingly reluctant to fund projects perceived as environmentally harmful, further constraining growth in the sector.

While Trump’s call for U.S. energy dominance taps into a desire for economic growth and energy security, it faces numerous challenges. Global market dynamics, infrastructure bottlenecks, environmental concerns, and the transition to renewable energy all pose significant barriers to achieving the ambitious vision.

For the U.S. to navigate these challenges effectively, a balanced approach that incorporates both traditional energy sources and investments in clean energy is likely needed. Striking this balance will require careful policymaking that considers not just immediate economic gains but also long-term sustainability and global competitiveness.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Site C Dam Update outlines hydroelectric budget overruns, geotechnical risks, COVID-19 construction delays, BC Hydro timelines, cancellation costs, and First Nations treaty rights concerns affecting renewable energy, ratepayers, and Peace Valley impacts.

Key Points

Overview of Site C costs, delays, geotechnical risks, and concerns shaping BC Hydro hydroelectric plans.

✅ Cost to cancel estimated at least $10B

✅ Final budget now about $16B; completion pushed to 2025

✅ COVID-19 and geotechnical risks drove delays and redesigns

The cost to cancel a massive B.C. energy development project would be at least $10 billion, provincial officials revealed in an update on the future of Site C.

Thus the project will go ahead, Premier John Horgan and Energy Minister Bruce Ralston announced Friday, but with an increased budget and timeline.

Horgan and Ralston spoke at a news conference in Victoria about the findings of a status report into the hydroelectric dam project in northeastern B.C.

Peter Milburn, former deputy finance minister, finished the report earlier this year, but the findings were not initially made public.

$10B more than initial estimate
On Friday, it was announced that the project's final price tag has once again ballooned by billions of dollars.

Site C was initially estimated to cost $6 billion, and the first approved budget, back in 2014, was $8.775 billion. The budget increased to $10.8 billion in 2018.

But the latest update suggests it will cost about $16 billion in total.

And, in addition to a higher budget, the date of completion has been pushed back to 2025 – a year later than the initial target.

Among the reasons for the revisions, according to the province, is the impact of COVID-19. While officials did not get into details, there have been multiple cases of the disease publicly reported at Site C work camps.

Additionally, fewer workers were permitted on site to allow for physical distancing, and construction was scaled back.

Also cited as a cause for the increased cost were "unforeseeable" geotechnical issues at the site, which required installation of an enhanced drainage system.

Speaking to reporters Friday, the premier deflected blame.

“Managing the contract the BC Liberals signed has been difficult because it transfers the vast majority of the geotechnical risk back to BC Hydro,” said Horgan.

Former Premier Christy Clark vowed to get the project to a point of no return, and in 2017 the NDP decided to continue with the project because of the cost of cancelling it.

The Liberals now say the clean energy project should continue, but deny they shoulder any of the blame.

“Someone has to take ownership – and it's got to be government in power,” said MLA Tom Shypitka, BC Liberal critic for energy. 

There are also several reviews underway, including how to change contractor schedules to reflect delays and potential cost impacts from COVID-19, and how to keep the work environment safe during the pandemic.

A total of 17 recommendations were made in Milburn's report, all of which have been accepted by BC Hydro and the province.

Among these recommendations is a restructured project assurance board with a focus on skill-specific membership and autonomy from BC Hydro.

Cost of cancelling the project
The report looked into whether it would be better to scrap the project altogether, but the cost of cancelling it at this point would be at least $10 billion, Horgan and Ralston said.

That cost does not include replacing lost energy and capacity that Site C's electricity would have provided, according to the province.

A study conducted in 2019 suggested B.C. will need to double its electricity production by 2055, especially as drought conditions are forcing BC Hydro to adapt power generation. 

The NDP government says the cost to ratepayers of cancelling the project would be $216 a year for 10 years. Going forward will still have a cost, but instead, that payment will be split over more than 70 years, the estimated lifetime of Site C, meaning BC Hydro customers will pay about $36 more a year once the site goes live, the NDP says, even as cryptocurrency mining raises questions about electricity use.

“We will not put jobs at risk; we will not shock people's hydro bills,” said Horgan.

"Our government has taken this situation very seriously, and with the advice of independent experts guiding us, I am confident in the path forward for Site C," Ralston said.

"B.C. needs more renewable energy to bridge the electricity gap with Alberta and electrify our economy, transition away from fossil fuels and meet our climate targets."

The minister said the site is currently employing about 4,500 people.

Arguments against Site C
While there are benefits to the project, there has also been vocal opposition.

In a statement released following the announcement that the project would go ahead, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs suggested the decision violated the premier's commitment to a UN declaration.

"The Site C dam has never had the free, prior and informed consent of all impacted First Nations, and proceeding with the project is a clear infringement of the treaty rights of the West Moberly First Nation," the UBCIC's secretary treasurer said.

Kukpi7 Judy Wilson said the UN's Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has called for a suspension of the project until it has the consent of Indigenous peoples.

"B.C. did not even attempt to engage First Nations about the safety risks associated with the stability of the dam in the recent reviews," she said.

"It is unfathomable that such clear human rights violations are somehow OK by this government."

Chief Roland Wilson of the West Moberly First Nation said he was disappointed the province didn’t consult his and other communities prior to making this announcement. In an interview with CTV News, he said he was offered an opportunity to join a call this morning.

“We signed a treaty in 1814,” he said. “Our treaty rights are being trampled on.”

Wilson said his nation has ongoing concerns about safety issues and the plans to flood the Peace Valley. West Moberly is in a bitter court battle with the province.

At the BC Legislature, Green Party Leader Sonia Furstenau slammed the government’s decision.

“It is an astonishingly terrible business case in any circumstances, but considering that we lose the agricultural land, the biodiversity, the traditional treaty lands of Treaty 8, this is particularly catastrophic,” she told reporters.

She went on to accuse the NDP government of keeping bad news from the public. She alleged the NDP knew of serious problems before last fall’s unscheduled election, but chose not to release information.

Prior to the decision former BC Hydro president and a former federal fisheries minister are among those who added their voices to calls to halt work on the dam.

They were among 18 Canadians who wrote an open letter to the province calling for an independent team of experts to explore geotechnical problems at the site.

In the letter, signed in September, the group that also included Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the UBCIC wrote that going ahead would be a "costly and potentially catastrophic mistake." 

According to Friday's update, independent experts have confirmed the site is safe, though improvements have been recommended to enhance oversight and risk management.

Earlier in the project, a B.C. First Nation claimed it was a $1-billion treaty violation, though an agreement was reached in 2020 after the province promised to improve land management and restore traditional place names in areas of cultural significance.

The Prophet River First Nation will also receive payments while the site is operating, and some Crown land will be transferred to the nation as part of the agreement. 

Additionally, residents of a tiny community not far from the site is suing the province over two slow-moving landslides they claim caused property values to plummet.

Nearly three dozen residents of Old Fort are behind the allegations of negligence and breach of their charter right to security of person. The claim is tied to two landslides, in 2018 and 2020, that the group alleges were caused by ground destabilization from construction related to Site C.

One of the landslides damaged the only road into the community, leaving residents under evacuation for a month.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News