CO2 capture project begins in Beijing

Affordable Clean Energy Rule Lawsuit pits EPA and coal industry allies against health groups over Clean Power Plan repeal, greenhouse gas emissions standards, climate change, public health, and state authority before the D.C. Circuit.

Key Points

A legal fight over EPA's ACE rule and CPP repeal, weighing emissions policy, state authority, climate, and public health.

✅ Challenges repeal of Clean Power Plan and adoption of ACE.

✅ EPA backed by coal, utilities; health groups seek stricter limits.

✅ D.C. Circuit to review emissions authority and state roles.

The largest trade association representing coal interests in the country has joined other business and electric utility groups in siding with the EPA in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's repeal of the Clean Power Plan.

The suit -- filed by the American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association -- seeks to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to drop a new rule-making process that critics claim would allow higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions, further contributing to the climate crisis and negatively impacting public health.

The new rule, which the Trump administration calls the "Affordable Clean Energy rule" (ACE), "would replace the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which EPA has proposed to repeal because it exceeded EPA's authority. The Clean Power Plan was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court and has never gone into effect," according to an EPA statement.

EPA has also moved to rewrite wastewater limits for coal power plants, signaling a broader rollback of related environmental requirements.

America's Power -- formerly the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity -- the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association have filed motions seeking to join the lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has not yet responded to the motion.

Separately, energy groups warned that President Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry were rushing major changes to electricity pricing that could disrupt markets.

"In this rule, the EPA has accomplished what eluded the prior administration: providing a clear, legal pathway to reduce emissions while preserving states' authority over their own grids," Hal Quinn, president and chief executive officer of the mining association, said when the new rule was released last month. "ACE replaces a proposal that was so extreme that the Supreme Court issued an unprecedented stay of the proposal, having recognized the economic havoc the mere suggestion of such overreach was causing in the nation's power grid."

Around the same time, a coal industry CEO blasted a federal agency's decision on the power grid as harmful to reliability.

The trade and business groups have argued that the Clean Power Plan, set by the Obama administration, was an overreach of federal power. Finalized in 2015, the plan was President Obama's signature policy on climate change, rooted in compliance with the Paris Climate Treaty. It would have set state limits on emissions from existing power plants but gave wide latitude for meeting goals, such as allowing plant operators to switch from coal to other electric generating sources to meet targets.

Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt argued that the rule exceeded federal statutory limits by imposing "outside the fence" regulations on coal-fired plants instead of regulating "inside the fence" operations that can improve efficiency.

The Clean Power Plan set a goal of reducing carbon emissions from power generators by 32 percent by the year 2030. An analysis from the Rhodium Group found that had states taken full advantage of the CPP's flexibility, emissions would have been reduced by as much as 72 million metric tons per year on average. Still, even absent federal mandates, the group noted that states are taking it upon themselves to enact emission-reducing plans based on market forces.

In its motion, America's Power argues the EPA "acknowledged that the [Best System of Emission Reduction] for a source category must be 'limited to measures that can be implemented ... by the sources themselves.'" If plants couldn't take action, compliance with the new rule would require the owners or operators to buy emission rate credits that would increase investment in electricity from gas-fired or renewable sources. The increase in operating costs plus federal efforts to shift power generation to other sources of energy, thereby increasing costs, would eventually force the coal-fired plants out of business.

In related proceedings, renewable energy advocates told FERC that a DOE proposal to subsidize coal and nuclear plants was unsupported by the record, highlighting concerns about market distortions.

"While we are confident that EPA will prevail in the courts, we also want to help EPA defend the new rule against others who prefer extreme regulation," said Michelle Bloodworth, president and CEO of America's Power.

"Extreme regulation" to one group is environmental and health protections to another, though.

Howard A. Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center of the Midwest, defended the Clean Power Plan in an opinion piece published in June.

"The Midwest still produces more electricity from coal plants than any other region of the country, and Midwesterners bear the full range of pollution harms to public health, the Great Lakes, and overall environmental quality," Learner wrote. "The new [Affordable Clean Energy] Rule is a misguided policy, moves our nation backward in solving climate change problems, and misses opportunities for economic growth and innovation in the global shift to renewable energy. If not reversed by the courts, as it should be, the next administration will have the challenge of doing the right thing for public health, the climate and our clean energy future."

When it initially filed its lawsuit against the Trump administration's Affordable Clean Energy Rule, the American Lung Association accused the EPA of "abdicat[ing] its legal duties and obligations to protect public health." It also referred to the new rule as "dangerous."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Electricity Export Retaliation signals tariff-fueled trade tensions as Doug Ford leverages cross-border energy flows to the U.S., risking grid reliability, higher power prices, and escalating a Canada-U.S. trade war over protectionist policies.

Key Points

A policy threat by Ontario to cut power exports to U.S. states in response to tariffs, leveraging grid dependence.

✅ Powers about 1.5M U.S. homes in NY, MI, and MN

✅ Risks price spikes, shortages, and legal challenges

✅ Part of Canada's CAD 30B retaliatory tariff package

In a move that underscores the escalating trade tensions between Canada and the United States, Ontario Premier Doug Ford has threatened to halt electricity exports to U.S. states in retaliation for the Trump administration's recent tariffs. This bold stance highlights Ontario's significant role in powering regions across the U.S. and serves as a warning about the potential consequences of trade disputes.

The Leverage of Ontario's Electricity

Ontario's electricity exports are not merely supplementary; they are essential to the energy supply of several U.S. states. The province provides power to approximately 1.5 million homes in states such as New York, Michigan, and Minnesota, even as it eyes energy independence through domestic initiatives. This substantial export positions Ontario as a key player in the regional energy market, giving the province considerable leverage in trade negotiations.

Premier Ford's Ultimatum

Responding to the Trump administration's imposition of a 25% tariff on Canadian imports, Premier Ford, following a Washington meeting, declared, "If they want to play tough, we can play tough." He further emphasized his readiness to act, stating, "I’ll cut them off with a smile on my face." This rhetoric underscores Ontario's willingness to use its energy exports as a bargaining chip in the trade dispute.

Economic and Political Ramifications

The potential cessation of electricity exports to the U.S. would have profound economic implications. U.S. states that rely on Ontario's power could face energy shortages, leading to increased prices, particularly New York energy prices, and potential disruptions. Such an action would not only strain the energy supply but also escalate political tensions, potentially affecting other areas of bilateral cooperation.

Canada's Retaliatory Measures

Ontario's threat is part of a broader Canadian strategy to counteract U.S. tariffs. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods worth approximately CAD 30 billion, targeting products such as food, textiles, and furniture. These measures aim to pressure the U.S. administration into reconsidering its trade policies.

The Risk of Escalation

While leveraging energy exports provides Ontario with a potent tool, it also carries significant risks, as experts warn against cutting Quebec's energy exports amid tariff tensions. Such actions could lead to a full-blown trade war, with both countries imposing tariffs and export restrictions. The resulting economic fallout could affect various sectors, from manufacturing to agriculture, and lead to job losses and increased consumer prices.

International Trade Relations

The dispute also raises questions about the stability of international trade agreements and the rules governing cross-border energy transactions. Both Canada and the U.S. are signatories to various trade agreements that promote the free flow of goods and services, including energy. Actions like export bans could violate these agreements and lead to legal challenges.

Public Sentiment and Nationalism

The trade tensions have sparked a surge in Canadian nationalism, with public sentiment largely supporting tariffs on energy and minerals as retaliatory measures. This sentiment is evident in actions such as boycotting American products and expressing discontent at public events. However, while national pride is a unifying force, it does not mitigate the potential economic hardships that may result from prolonged trade disputes.

The Path Forward

Navigating this complex situation requires careful diplomacy and negotiation. Both Canada and the U.S. must weigh the benefits of trade against the potential costs of escalating tensions. Engaging in dialogue, seeking compromise, and adhering to international trade laws are essential steps to prevent further deterioration of relations and to ensure the stability of both economies.

Ontario's threat to cut off electricity exports to the U.S. serves as a stark reminder of the interconnectedness of global trade and the potential consequences of protectionist policies. While such measures can be effective in drawing attention to grievances, they also risk significant economic and political fallout. As the situation develops, it will be crucial to monitor the responses of both governments and the impact on industries and consumers alike, including growing support for Canadian energy projects among stakeholders.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One Avista merger faces regulatory scrutiny in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, as political risk outweighs defensive utilities fundamentals like stable cash flow, rate base growth, EPS outlook, and a near 5% dividend yield.

Key Points

A planned Hydro One-Avista acquisition awaiting key state approvals amid elevated political and regulatory risk.

✅ Hold rating, $24 price target, 28.1% implied return

✅ EPS forecast: $1.27 in 2018; $1.38 in 2019

✅ Defensive utility: stable cash flow, 4-6% rate base growth

A seemingly positive development for Hydro One is overshadowed by ongoing political and regulatory risk, as seen after the CEO and board ouster, Industrial Alliance Securities analyst Jeremy Rosenfield says.

On October 4, staff from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission filed updated testimony in support of the merger of Hydro One and natural gas distributor Avista, which had previously received U.S. antitrust clearance from federal authorities.

The merger, which was announced in July of 2017 has received the green light from federal and key states, with Washington, Oregon and Idaho being exceptions, though the companies would later seek reconsideration from U.S. regulators in the process.

But Rosenfield says even though decisions from Oregon and Idaho are expected by December, there are still too many unknowns about Hydro One to recommend investors jump into the stock.

Hydro One stock defensive but risky

“We continue to view Hydro One as a fundamentally defensive investment, underpinned by (1) stable earnings and cash flows from its regulated utility businesses (2) healthy organic rate base and earning growth (4-6%/year through 2022) and (3) an attractive dividend (~5% yield, 70-80% target payout),” the analyst says. “In the meantime, and ahead of key regulatory approvals in the AVA transaction, we continue to see heightened political/regulatory risk as an overhand on the stock, outweighing Hydro One’s fundamentals in the near term.”

In a research update to clients today, Rosenfield maintained his “Hold” rating and one year price target of $24.00 on Hydro One, implying a return of 28.1 per cent at the time of publication.

Rosenfield thinks Hydro One will generate EPS of $1.27 per share in fiscal 2018, even though its Q2 profit plunged 23% as electricity revenue fell. He expects that number will improve to EPS of $1.38 a share the following year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Florida Solar for All Opt-Out highlights Gov. DeSantis rejecting EPA grant funds under the Inflation Reduction Act, limiting low-income households' access to solar panels, clean energy programs, and promised electricity savings across disadvantaged communities.

Key Points

Florida Solar for All Opt-Out is the state declining EPA grants, restricting low-income access to solar energy savings.

✅ EPA grant under IRA aimed at low-income solar

✅ Estimated 20% electricity bill savings missed

✅ Florida lacks PPAs and renewable standards

Florida has passed up on up to $400 million in federal money that would have helped low-income households install solar panels.

A $7 billion grant “competition” to promote clean energy in disadvantaged communities by providing low-income households with access to affordable solar energy was introduced by President Joe Biden earlier this year, and despite his climate law's mixed results in practice, none of that money will reach Florida households.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced the competition in June as part of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. However, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has decided to pass on the $400 million up for grabs by choosing to opt out of the opportunity.

Inflation Reduction Act:What is the Inflation Reduction Act? Everything to know about one of Biden's big laws

The program would have helped Florida households reduce their electricity costs by a minimum of 20% during a key time when Floridians are leaving in droves due to a rising cost of living associated with soaring insurance costs, inflation, and proposed FPL rate hikes statewide.

Florida was one of six other states that chose not to apply for the money.

President Joe Biden announced a $7 billion “competition” to promote clean energy in disadvantaged communities.

The opportunity, named “Solar for All,” was announced by the EPA in June and promised to provide up to $7 billion in grants to states, territories, tribal governments, municipalities, and nonprofits to expand the number of low-income and disadvantaged communities primed for residential solar investment — enabling millions of low-income households to access affordable, resilient and clean solar energy.

The grant is intended to help lower energy costs for families, create jobs and help reduce greenhouse effects that accelerate global climate change by providing financial support and incentives to communities that were previously locked out of investments.

How much money would Floridians save under the ‘Solar for All’ solar panel grant?

The program aims to reduce household electricity costs by at least 20%. Florida households paid an average of $154.51 per month for electricity in 2022, just over 14% of the national average of $135.25, and debates over hurricane rate surcharges continue to shape customer bills, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. A 20% savings would drop those bills down to around $123 per month.

On the campaign trail, DeSantis has pledged to unravel Biden’s green energy agenda if elected president, amid escalating solar policy battles nationwide, slamming the Inflation Reduction Act and what he called “a concerted effort to ramp up the fear when it comes to things like global warming and climate change.”

His energy agenda includes ending Biden’s subsidies for electric cars while pushing policies that he says would ramp up domestic oil production.

“The subsidies are going to drive inflation higher,” DeSantis said at an event in September. “It’s not going to help with interest rates, and it is certainly not going to help with our unsustainable debt levels.”

DeSantis heading to third debate:As he enters third debate, Ron DeSantis has a big Nikki Haley problem

DeSantis’ plan to curb clean energy usage in Florida seems to be at odds with the state as a whole, and the region's evolving strategy for the South underscores why it has been ranked among the top three states to go solar since 2019, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).

SEIA also shows, however, that Florida lags behind many other states when it comes to solar policies, as utilities tilt the solar market in ways that influence policy outcomes statewide. Florida, for instance, has no renewable energy standards, which are used to increase the use of renewable energy sources for electricity by requiring or encouraging suppliers to provide customers with a stated minimum share of electricity from eligible renewable resources, according to the EIA.

Power purchase agreements, which can help lower the cost of going solar through third-party financing, are also not allowed in Florida, with court rulings on monopolies reinforcing the existing market structure. And there have been other policies implemented that drove other potential solar investments to other states.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Western Lithium Supply Localization is accelerating as EV battery makers diversify from China, boosting lithium hydroxide sourcing in North America and Europe, amid Covid-19 disruptions and rising prices, with geothermal brines and local processing.

Key Points

An industry shift to source lithium and processing near EV hubs, reducing China reliance and supply chain risk.

✅ EV makers seek North American and European lithium hydroxide

✅ Prices rise amid Covid-19 and logistics constraints

✅ New extraction: geothermal and oilfield brine projects

The global outbreak of coronavirus will accelerate efforts by western carmakers to localise supplies of lithium for electric car batteries, according to US producer Livent.

The industry was keen to diversify away from China, which produces the bulk of the world’s lithium, a critical material for lithium-ion batteries, said Paul Graves, Livent’s chief executive.

“It’s a conversation that’s starting to happen that was not happening even six months ago,” especially in the US, the former Goldman Sachs banker added.

China produced about 79 per cent of the lithium hydroxide used in electric car batteries last year, according to consultancy CRU, a supply chain that has been disrupted by the virus outbreak and EV shortages in some markets.

Prices for lithium hydroxide rose 3.1 per cent last month, their first increase since May 2018, according to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, due to the impact of the Covid-19 bug.

Chinese lithium producer Ganfeng Lithium, which supplies major carmakers from Tesla to Volkswagen, said it had raised prices by less than 10 per cent, due to higher production costs and logistical difficulties.

“We can get lithium from lots of places . . . is that really something we’re prepared to rely upon?” Mr Graves said. “People are going to relook at supply chains, including battery recycling initiatives that enhance resilience, and relook at their integrity . . . and they’re going to say is there something we need to do to change our supply chains to make them more shockproof?”

General Motors last week said it was looking to source battery minerals such as lithium and nickel from North America for its new range of electric cars that will use cells made in Ohio by South Korea’s LG Chem.

“Some of these critical minerals could be challenging to obtain; it’s not just cobalt you need to be concerned about but also battery-grade nickel and lithium as well,” said Andy Oury, a lead engineer for batteries at GM. “We’re doing all of this with an eye to sourcing as much of the raw material from North America as possible.”

However, George Heppel, an analyst at CRU, warned it would be difficult to compete with China on costs. “China is always going to be the most competitive place to buy battery raw materials. That’s not likely to change anytime soon,” he said.

Livent, which extracts lithium from brines in northern Argentina, is looking at extracting the mineral from geothermal resources in the US and also wants to build a processing plant in Europe.

The Philadelphia-based company is also working with Canadian start-up E3 Metals to extract lithium from brines in Alberta's oil and gasfields for new projects in Canada.

“We’ll look at doing more in the US and more in Europe,” said Mr Graves, underscoring evolving Canada-U.S. collaboration across EV supply chains.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Nunavut electricity rate increase sees QEC raise domestic electricity rates 6.6% over two years, affecting customer rates, base rates, subsidies, and kWh overage charges across communities, with public housing exempt and territory-wide pricing denied.

Key Points

A 6.6% QEC hike over 2018-2019, affecting customer rates, subsidies, and kWh overage; public housing remains exempt.

✅ 3.3% on May 1, 2018; 3.3% on Apr 1, 2019

✅ Subsidy caps: 1,000 kWh Oct-Mar; 700 kWh Apr-Sep

✅ Territory-wide base rate denied; public housing exempt

Ahead of the Nunavut government's approval of the general rate increase for the Qulliq Energy Corporation, many Nunavummiut wondered how the change would impact their electricity bills.

QEC's request for a 6.6-per-cent increase was approved by the government last week. The increase will be spread out over two years, a pattern similar to BC Hydro's two-year rate plan, with the first increase (3.3 per cent) effective May 1, 2018. The remaining 3.3 per cent will be applied on April 1, 2019.

Public housing units, however, are exempt from the government's increase altogether.

The power corporation also asked for a territory-wide rate, so every community would pay the same base rate (we'll go over specific terms in a minute if you're not familiar with them). But that request was denied, even as Manitoba Hydro scaled back increases next year, and QEC will now take the next two years reassessing each community's base rate.

#google#

So, what does this mean for your home's power bill? Well, there's a few things you need to know, which we'll get to in a second.

But in essence, as long as you don't go over the government-subsidized monthly electricity usage limit, you're paying an extra 3.61 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh).

To be clear, we're talking about non-government domestic rates — basically, private homeowners — and those living in a government-owned unit but pay for their own power.

The basics

First, some quick terminology. The "base rate" term we're going to use (and used above) in this story refers to the community rate. As in, what QEC charges customers in every community. The "customer rate" is the rate customers actually pay, after the government's subsidy.

The first thing you need to know is everyone in Nunavut starts off by paying the same customer rate, unlike jurisdictions using a price cap to limit spikes.

That's because the government subsidizes electricity costs, and that subsidy is different in every community, because the base rate is different.

For example, Iqaluit's new base rate after the 3.3 per cent increase (remember, the 6.6 per cent is being applied over two years) is 56.69 cents per kWh, while Kugaaruk's base rate rose to 112.34 cents per kWh. Those, by the way, are the territory's lowest and highest respective base rates.

However, customers in both Iqaluit and Kugaaruk will each now pay 28.35 cents per kWh because, remember, the government subsidizes the base rates in every community.

Now, remember earlier we mentioned a "government-subsidized monthly electricity usage limit?" That's where customers in various communities start to pay different amounts.

As simply as we can explain it, the government will only cover so much electricity usage in a month, in every household.

Between October and March, the government will subsidize the first 1,000 kilowatt hours, and only 700 kilowatt hours from April to September. QEC says the average Nunavut home will use about 500 kilowatt hours every month over the course of a year.

But if your household goes over that limit, you're at the mercy of your community's base rate for any extra electricity you use. Homes in Kugaaruk in December, for instance, will have to pay that 122.34 cents for every extra kilowatt hour it uses, while homes in Iqaluit only have to pay 56.69 cents per kWh for its extra electricity.

That's where many Nunavummiut have criticized the current rate structure, because smaller communities are paying more for their extra costs than larger communities.

QEC had hoped — as it had asked for — to change the structure so every community pays the same base rate. So regardless of if people go over their electricity usage limits for the government subsidy, everyone would pay the same overage rates.

But the government denied that request.

New rate is actually lower

The one thing we should highlight, however, is the new rate after the increase is actually lower than what customers were paying in 2014.

For the past seven months, customers have been getting power from QEC at a discount, whereas Newfoundland customers began paying for Muskrat Falls during the same period, to different effect.

That's because when QEC sets its rates, it does so based on global oil price forecasts. Since 2014, the price of oil worldwide has slumped, and so QEC was able to purchase it at less than it had anticipated.

When that happens, and QEC makes more than $1 million within a six month period thanks to the lower oil prices, it refunds the excess profits back to customers through a discount on electricity base rates — a mechanism similar to a lump-sum credit used elsewhere — the government subsidy, however, doesn't change so the savings are passed on directly to customers.

Now, the 6.6 per cent increase to electricity rates, is actually being applied to the discounted base rate from the last seven months.

So again, while customers are paying more than they have been for the last seven months, it's lower than what they were paying in 2014.

Lastly, to be clear, all the figures used in this story are only for domestic non-government rates. Commercial rates and changes have not been explored in this story, given the differences in subsidy and rate application.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News