Blu Power fifth retail marketer to quit ERCOT

Hydroelectric retrofits for unpowered dams leverage turbines to add renewable capacity, bolster grid reliability, and enable low-impact energy storage, supporting U.S. and Canada decarbonization goals with lower costs, minimal habitat disruption, and climate resilience.

Key Points

They add turbines to existing dams to make clean power, stabilize the grid, and offer low-impact storage at lower cost.

✅ Lower capex than new dams; minimal habitat disruption

✅ Adds firming and storage to support wind and solar

✅ New low-head turbines unlock more retrofit sites

As countries race to get their power grids off fossil fuels to fight climate change, there's a big push in the U.S. to upgrade dams built for purposes such as water management or navigation with a feature they never had before — hydroelectric turbines. 

And the strategy is being used in parts of Canada, too, with growing interest in hydropower from Canada supplying New York and New England.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration says only three per cent of 90,000 U.S. dams currently generate electricity. A 2012 report from the U.S. Department of Energy found that those dams have 12,000 megawatts (MW) of potential hydroelectric generation capacity. (According to the National Hydropower Association, 1 MW can power 750 to 1,000 homes. That means 12,000 MW should be able to power more than nine million homes.)

As of May 2019, there were projects planned to convert 32 unpowered dams to add 330 MW to the grid over the next several years.

One that was recently completed was the Red Rock Hydroelectric Project, a 60-year-old flood control dam on the Des Moines River in Iowa that was retrofitted in 2014 to generate 36.4 MW at normal reservoir levels, and up to 55 MW at high reservoir levels and flows. It started feeding power to the grid this spring, and is expected to generate enough annually to supply power to 18,000 homes.

It's an approach that advocates say can convert more of the grid from fossil fuels to clean energy, often with a lower cost and environmental impact than building new dams.

Hydroelectric facilities can also be used for energy storage, complementing intermittent clean energy sources such as wind and solar with pumped storage to help maintain a more reliable, resilient grid.

The Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund are two environmental groups that oppose new hydro dams because they can block fish migration, harm water quality, damage surrounding ecosystems and release methane and CO2, and in some regions, Western Canada drought has reduced hydropower output as reservoirs run low. But they say adding turbines to non-powered dams can be part of a shift toward low-impact hydro projects that can support expansion of solar and wind power.

Paul Norris, president of the Ontario Waterpower Association, said there's typically widespread community support for such projects in his province amid ongoing debate over whether Ontario is embracing clean power in its future plans. "Any time that you can better use existing assets, I think that's a good thing."

New turbine technology means water doesn't need to fall from as great a height to generate power, providing opportunities at sites that weren't commercially viable in the past, Norris said, with recent investments such as new turbines in Manitoba showing what is possible.

In Ontario, about 1,000 unpowered dams are owned by various levels of government. "With the appropriate policy framework, many of these assets have the potential to be retrofitted for small hydro," Norris wrote in a letter to Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator this year as part of a discussion on small-scale local energy generation resources.

He told CBC that several such projects are already in operation, such as a 950 kW retrofit of the McLeod Dam at the Moira River in Belleville, Ont., in 2008. 

Four hydro stations were going to be added during dam refurbishment on the Trent-Severn Waterway, but they were among 758 renewable energy projects cancelled by Premier Doug Ford's government after his election in 2018, a move examined in an analysis of Ontario's dirtier electricity outlook and its implications.

Patrick Bateman, senior vice-president of Waterpower Canada, said such dam retrofit projects are uncommon in most provinces. "I don't see it being a large part of the future electricity generation capacity."

He said there has been less movement on retrofitting unpowered dams in Canada compared to the U.S., because:

There are a lot more opportunities in Canada to refurbish large, existing hydro-generating stations to boost capacity on a bigger scale.

There's less growth in demand for clean energy, because more of Canada's grid is already non-carbon-emitting (80 per cent) compared to the U.S. (40 per cent).

Even so, Norris thinks Canadians should be looking at all opportunities and options when it comes to transitioning the grid away from fossil fuels, including retrofitting non-powered dams, especially as a recent report highlights Canada's looming power problem over the coming decades.

"If we're going to be serious about addressing the inevitable challenges associated with climate change targets and net zero, it really is an all-of-the-above approach."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Electric Buses reduce urban emissions and noise, but require charging infrastructure, grid upgrades, and depot redesigns; they offer lower operating costs and simpler maintenance, with range limits influencing routes, schedules, and on-route fast charging.

Key Points

Battery-electric buses cut emissions and noise while lowering operating and maintenance costs for transit agencies.

✅ Lower emissions, noise; improved rider experience

✅ Requires charging, grid upgrades, depot redesigns

✅ Range limits affect routes; on-route fast charging helps

In lots of ways, the electric bus feels like a technology whose time has come. Transportation is responsible for about a quarter of global emissions, and those emissions are growing faster than in any other sector. While buses are just a small slice of the worldwide vehicle fleet, they have an outsize effect on the environment. That’s partly because they’re so dirty—one Bogotá bus fleet made up just 5 percent of the city’s total vehicles, but a quarter of its CO2, 40 percent of nitrogen oxide, and more than half of all its particulate matter vehicle emissions. And because buses operate exactly where the people are concentrated, we feel the effects that much more acutely.

Enter the electric bus. Depending on the “cleanliness” of the electric grid into which they’re plugged, e-buses are much better for the environment. They’re also just straight up nicer to be around: less vibration, less noise, zero exhaust. Plus, in the long term, e-buses have lower operating costs, and related efforts like US school bus electrification are gathering pace too.

So it makes sense that global e-bus sales increased by 32 percent last year, according to a report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, as the age of electric cars accelerates across markets worldwide. “You look across the electrification of cars, trucks—it’s buses that are leading this revolution,” says David Warren, the director of sustainable transportation at bus manufacturer New Flyer.

Today, about 17 percent of the world’s buses are electric—425,000 in total. But 99 percent of them are in China, where a national mandate promotes all sorts of electric vehicles. In North America, a few cities have bought a few electric buses, or at least run limited pilots, to test the concept out, and early deployments like Edmonton's first e-bus offer useful lessons as systems ramp up. California has even mandated that by 2029 all buses purchased by its mass transit agencies be zero-emission.

But given all the benefits of e-buses, why aren’t there more? And why aren’t they everywhere?

“We want to be responsive, we want to be innovative, we want to pilot new technologies and we’re committed to doing so as an agency,” says Becky Collins, the manager of corporate initiative at the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, which is currently on its second e-bus pilot program. “But if the diesel bus was a first-generation car phone, we’re verging on smartphone territory right now. It’s not as simple as just flipping a switch.”

One reason is trepidation about the actual electric vehicle. Some of the major bus manufacturers are still getting over their skis, production-wise. During early tests in places like Belo Horizonte, Brazil, e-buses had trouble getting over steep hills with full passenger loads. Albuquerque, New Mexico, canceled a 15-bus deal with the Chinese manufacturer BYD after finding equipment problems during testing. (The city also sued). Today’s buses get around 225 miles per charge, depending on topography and weather conditions, which means they have to re-up about once a day on a shorter route in a dense city. That’s an issue in a lot of places.

If you want to buy an electric bus, you need to buy into an entire electric bus system. The vehicle is just the start.

The number one thing people seem to forget about electric buses is that they need to get charged, and emerging projects such as a bus depot charging hub illustrate how infrastructure can scale. “We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles,” says Camron Gorguinpour, the global senior manager for the electric vehicles at the World Resources Institute, a research organization, which last month released twin reports on electric bus adoption. “The actual charging stations get lost in the mix.”

But charging stations are expensive—about $50,000 for your standard depot-based one. On-route charging stations, an appealing option for longer bus routes, can be two or three times that. And that’s not even counting construction costs. Or the cost of new land: In densely packed urban centers, movements inside bus depots can be tightly orchestrated to accommodate parking and fueling. New electric bus infrastructure means rethinking limited space, and operators can look to Toronto's TTC e-bus fleet for practical lessons on depot design. And it’s a particular pain when agencies are transitioning between diesel and electric buses. “The big issue is just maintaining two sets of fueling infrastructure,” says Hanjiro Ambrose, a doctoral student at UC Davis who studies transportation technology and policy.

“We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles. The actual charging stations get lost in the mix as the American EV boom gathers pace across sectors.”

Then agencies also have to get the actual electricity to their charging stations. This involves lengthy conversations with utilities about grid upgrades, rethinking how systems are wired, occasionally building new substations, and, sometimes, cutting deals on electric output, since electric truck fleets will also strain power systems in parallel. Because an entirely electrified bus fleet? It’s a lot to charge. Warren, the New Flyer executive, estimates it could take 150 megawatt-hours of electricity to keep a 300-bus depot charged up throughout the day. Your typical American household, by contrast, consumes 7 percent of that—per year. “That’s a lot of work by the utility company,” says Warren.

For cities outside of China—many of them still testing out electric buses and figuring out how they fit into their larger fleets—learning about what it takes to run one is part of the process. This, of course, takes money. It also takes time. Optimists say e-buses are more of a question of when than if. Bloomberg New Energy Finance projects that just under 60 percent of all fleet buses will be electric by 2040, compared to under 40 percent of commercial vans and 30 percent of passenger vehicles.

Which means, of course, that the work has just started. “With new technology, it always feels great when it shows up,” says Ambrose. “You really hope that first mile is beautiful, because the shine will come off. That’s always true.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Automaker EV Fast-Charging Network will deploy 30,000 DC fast chargers across US and Canada, supporting CCS and NACS, integrating Tesla compatibility, easing range anxiety, and expanding highway and urban charging infrastructure with amenities and uptime.

Key Points

A $1B joint venture by seven automakers to build 30,000 DC fast chargers with CCS and NACS across the US and Canada.

✅ 30,000 DC fast chargers by 2030 across US and Canada

✅ Supports CCS and NACS; Tesla compatibility planned

✅ Launching mid-2024; focus on highways, urban hubs, amenities

Seven major automakers announced a plan on Wednesday to nearly double the number of fast chargers in the United States in an effort to address one of the main reasons that people hesitate to buy electric cars, even as the age of electric cars accelerates.

The carmakers — BMW Group, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes-Benz Group and Stellantis — will initially invest at least $1 billion in a joint venture that will build 30,000 charging ports on major highways and other locations in the United States and Canada.

The United States and Canada have about 36,000 fast chargers — those that can replenish a drained battery in 30 minutes or less. In some sparsely populated areas, such chargers can be hundreds of miles apart. Surveys show that fear about not being able to find a charger during longer journeys is a major reason that some car buyers are reluctant to buy electric vehicles.

Sales of electric vehicles have risen quickly in the United States as the market hits an inflection point, but there are signs that demand is softening. As a result, Tesla, Ford and other carmakers have cut prices in recent months and are offering incentives. Popular models that had long waiting lists last year are now available in a few days or weeks.

Major carmakers are investing billions of dollars to manufacture electric vehicles and batteries and to establish supplier networks. Having staked their futures on the technology, they have a strong incentive to ensure that electric vehicles catch on with car buyers, even as gas-electric hybrids help bridge the transition.

The chargers installed by the joint venture will have plugs designed for the connections used by most carmakers other than Tesla, as well as the standard developed by Tesla, amid fights for control over charging, that Ford, G.M. and other companies have said they intend to switch to in 2025.

“The better experience people have, the faster E.V. adoption will grow,” Mary T. Barra, the chief executive of General Motors, said in a statement.

The seven automakers plan to formalize the joint venture and announce its name by the end of the year, Chris Martin, a Honda spokesman, said. The first chargers will begin operating around the middle of 2024, he said, with all 30,000 in place by the end of the decade.

The joint venture is open to adding other partners, he said. Among major automakers, Ford was a notable absence from the announcement on Wednesday. The company said in a statement on Wednesday that it would continue to iThe partnership also does not include Volkswagen. The company is a majority shareholder of Electrify America, one of the largest fast-charging providers.

Tesla accounts for more than half the fast chargers in the United States and has said it will open its networks to other car brands, though, so far, it has only made fewer than 100 ports available. Owners of Ford and G.M. vehicles, among others, will be able to connect to 12,000 Tesla fast chargers using an adapter beginning next year. In 2025, Ford and G.M. plan to make models designed to take the Tesla plug without an adapter.

The decision by the seven carmakers to form the joint venture is an indication that they do not intend to rely solely on Tesla, which dominates sales of electric vehicles, for charging.

The chargers being built by the joint venture will be concentrated in urban areas and along major highways, especially those used most heavily by vacationers and other travelers, the companies said in a joint statement. Charging stations will be close to restrooms, restaurants and other amenities. The partners said they would try to take advantage of federal and state funds available for charging infrastructure amid questions about whether the U.S. has the power to charge it at scale.

Most electric vehicle owners charge at home and rarely need to use public chargers. Home chargers typically replenish batteries overnight. Most public chargers, about 125,000 in the United States and Canada, also operate relatively slowly — taking four to 10 hours to do the job.nvest in its own network, which allows Ford owners to charge from a variety of providers with one mobile phone app.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Quebec Energy Bill Tariff Delay disrupts Canada-U.S. trade, renewable energy investment, hydroelectric expansion, and clean technology projects, as Trump tariffs on aluminum and steel raise costs, threatening climate targets and green infrastructure timelines.

Key Points

A policy pause in Quebec from U.S. tariff threats, disrupting clean investment, hydro expansion, and climate targets.

✅ Tariff risk inflates aluminum and steel project costs.

✅ Quebec delays clean energy legislation amid trade uncertainty.

✅ Hydroelectric reliance complicates emissions reduction timelines.

The Trump administration's tariff threat has had a significant impact on Quebec's energy sector, with tariff threats boosting support for projects even as the uncertainty resulted in the delay of a critical energy bill. Originally introduced to streamline energy development and tackle climate change, the bill was meant to help transition Quebec towards greener alternatives while fostering economic growth. However, the U.S. threat to impose tariffs on Canadian goods, including energy products, introduced a wave of uncertainty that led to a pause in the bill's legislative process.

Quebec’s energy bill had ambitious goals of transitioning to renewable sources like wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. It sought to support investments in clean technologies and the expansion of the province's clean energy infrastructure, as the U.S. demand for Canadian green power continues to grow across the border. Moreover, it emphasized the reduction of carbon emissions, an important step towards meeting Quebec's climate targets. At its core, the bill aimed to position the province as a leader in green energy development in Canada and globally.

The interruption caused by President Donald Trump's tariff rhetoric has, however, cast a shadow over the legislation. Tariffs, if enacted, would disproportionately affect Canada's energy exports, with electricity exports at risk under growing tensions, particularly in sectors like aluminum and steel, which are integral to energy infrastructure development. These tariffs could increase the cost of energy-related projects, thereby hindering Quebec's ability to achieve its renewable energy goals and reduce carbon emissions in a timely manner.

The tariff threat was seen as a part of the broader trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada, a continuation of the trade war that had escalated under Trump’s presidency. In this context, the Quebec government was forced to reconsider its legislative priorities, with policymakers citing concerns over the potential long-term consequences on the energy industry, as leaders elsewhere threatened to cut U.S.-bound electricity to exert leverage. With the uncertainty around tariffs and trade relations, the government opted to delay the bill until the geopolitical situation stabilized.

This delay underscores the vulnerability of Quebec’s energy agenda to external pressures. While the provincial government had set its sights on an ambitious green energy future, it now faces significant challenges in ensuring that its projects remain economically viable under the cloud of potential tariffs, even as experts warn against curbing Quebec's exports during the dispute. The delay in the energy bill also reflects broader challenges faced by the Canadian energy sector, which is highly integrated with the U.S. market.

The situation is further complicated by the province's reliance on hydroelectric power, a cornerstone of its energy strategy that supplies markets like New York, where tariffs could spike New York energy prices if cross-border flows are disrupted. While hydroelectric power is a clean and renewable source of energy, there are concerns about the environmental impact of large-scale dams, and these concerns have been growing in recent years. The tariff threat may prompt a reevaluation of Quebec’s energy mix and force the government to balance its environmental goals with economic realities.

The potential imposition of tariffs also raises questions about the future of North American energy cooperation. Historically, Canada and the U.S. have enjoyed a symbiotic energy relationship, with significant energy trade flowing across the border. The energy bill in Quebec was designed with the understanding that cross-border energy trade would continue to thrive. The Trump administration's tariff threat, however, casts doubt on this stability, forcing Quebec lawmakers to reconsider how they proceed with energy policy in a more uncertain trade environment.

Looking forward, Quebec's energy sector will likely need to adjust its strategies to account for the possibility of tariffs, while still pushing for a sustainable energy future, especially if Biden outlook for Canada's energy proves more favorable for the sector in the medium term. It may also open the door for deeper discussions about diversification, both in terms of energy sources and trade partnerships, as Quebec seeks to mitigate the impact of external threats. The delay in the energy bill, though unfortunate, may serve as a wake-up call for Canadian lawmakers to rethink how they balance environmental goals with global trade realities.

Ultimately, the Trump tariff threat highlights the delicate balance between regional energy ambitions and international trade dynamics. For Quebec, the delay in the energy bill could prove to be a pivotal moment in shaping the future of its energy policy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Southeast Alaska Energy Projects advance hydroelectric, biomass, and heat pumps, displacing diesel via grants. Inside Passage Electric Cooperative and Alaska Energy Authority support Kake, Hoonah, Ketchikan with wood pellets, feasibility studies, and rate relief.

Key Points

Programs using hydro, biomass, and heat pumps to cut diesel use and lower electricity costs in Southeast Alaska.

✅ Hydroelectric at Gunnuk Creek to replace diesel in Kake

✅ Biomass and wood pellets displacing fuel oil in facilities

✅ Free feasibility studies; heat pumps where economical

New projects are under development throughout the region to help reduce energy costs for Southeast Alaska residents. A panel presented some of those during last week’s Southeast Conference annual fall meeting in Ketchikan.

Jodi Mitchell is with Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, which is working on the Gunnuk Creek hydroelectric project for Kake. IPEC is a non-profit, she said, with the goal of reducing electric rates for its members.

The Gunnuk Creek project will be built at an existing dam.

“The benefits for the project will be, of course, renewable energy for Kake. And we estimate it will save about 6.2 million gallons over its 50-year life,” she said. “Although, as you heard earlier, these hydro projects last forever.”

The gallons saved are of diesel fuel, which currently is used to power generators for electricity, though in places with limited options some have even turned to new coal plants to keep the lights on.

IPEC operates other hydro projects in Klukwan and Hoonah. Mitchell said they’re looking into future projects, one near Angoon and another that would add capacity to the existing Hoonah project, even as an independent power project in British Columbia is in limbo.

Mitchell said they fund much of their work through grants, which helps keep electric rates at a reasonable level.

Devany Plentovich with the Alaska Energy Authority talked about biomass projects in the state. She said the goal is to increase wood energy use in Alaska, even as some advocates call for a reduction in biomass electricity in other regions.

“We offer any community, any entity, a free feasibility study to see if they have a potential heating system in their community,” she said. “We do advocate for wood heating, but we are trying to get a community to pick the best heating technology for their situation, including options that use more electricity for heat when appropriate. So in a lot of situations, our consultants will give you the economics on a wood heating system but they’ll also recommend maybe you should look at heat pumps or look at waste energy.”

Plentovich said they recently did a study for Ketchikan’s Holy Name Church and School. The result was a recommendation for a heat pump rather than wood.

But, she said, wood energy is on the rise, and utilities elsewhere are increasing biomass for electricity as well. There are more than 50 systems in the state displacing more than 500,000 gallons of fuel oil annually. Those include systems on Prince of Wales Island and in Ketchikan.

Ketchikan recently experienced a supply issue, though. A local wood-pellet manufacturer closed, which is a problem for the airport and the public library, among other facilities that use biomass heaters.

Karen Petersen is the biomass outreach coordinator for Southeast Conference. She said this opens up a great opportunity for someone.

“Devany and I are working on trying to find a supplier who wants to go into the pellet business,” she said. “Probably importing initially, and then converting over to some form of manufacturing once the demand is stabilized.”

So, Petersen said, if anyone is interested in this entrepreneurial opportunity, contact her through Southeast Conference for more information.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Oil and Gas Profitability Decline reflects shale-driven oversupply, OPEC-Russia dynamics, LNG exports, renewables growth, and weak demand, signaling compressed margins for producers, stressed petrodollar budgets, and shifting energy markets post-Covid.

Key Points

A sustained squeeze on hydrocarbon margins from agile shale supply, weaker OPEC leverage, and expanding renewables.

✅ Shale responsiveness caps prices and erodes industry rents

✅ OPEC-Russia cuts face limited impact versus US supply

✅ Renewables and EVs slow long-term oil and gas demand

The oil-price crash of March 2020 will probably not last long. As in 2014, when the oil price dropped below $50 from $110 in a few weeks, this one will trigger a temporary collapse of the US shale industry. Unless the coronavirus outbreak causes Armageddon, cheap oil will also support policymakers’ efforts to help the global economy.

But there will be at least one important and lasting difference this time round — and it has major market and geopolitical implications.

The oil price crash is a foretaste of where the whole energy sector was going anyway — and that is down.

It may not look that way at first. Saudi Arabia will soon realise, as it did in 2015, that its lethal decision to pump more oil is not only killing US shale but its public finances as well. Riyadh will soon knock on Moscow’s door again. Once American shale supplies collapse, Russia will resume co-operation with Saudi Arabia.

With the world economy recovering from the Covid-19 crisis by then, and with electricity demand during COVID-19 shifting, moderate supply cuts by both countries will accelerate oil market recovery. In time, US shale producers will return too.

Yet this inevitable bounceback should not distract from two fundamental factors that were already remaking oil and gas markets. First, the shale revolution has fundamentally eroded industry profitability. Second, the renewables’ revolution will continue to depress growth in demand.

The combined result has put the profitability of the entire global hydrocarbon industry under pressure. That means fewer petrodollars to support oil-producing countries’ national budgets, including Canada's oil sector exposures. It also means less profitable oil companies, which traditionally make up a large segment of stock markets, an important component of so many western pension funds.

Start with the first factor to see why this is so. Historically, the geological advantages that made oil from countries such as Saudi Arabia so cheap to produce were unique. Because oil and gas were produced at costs far below the market price, the excess profits, or “rent”, enjoyed by the industry were very large.

Furthermore, collusion among low-cost producers has been a winning strategy. The loss of market share through output cuts was more than compensated by immediately higher prices. It was the raison d’être of Opec.

The US shale revolution changed all this, exposing the limits of U.S. energy dominance narratives. A large oil-producing region emerged with a remarkable ability to respond quickly to price changes and shrink its costs over time. Cutting back cheap Opec oil now only increases US supplies, with little effect on world prices.

That is why Russia refused to cut production this month. Even if its cuts did boost world prices — doubtful given the coronavirus outbreak’s huge shock to demand — that would slow the shrinkage of US shale that Moscow wants.

Shale has affected the natural gas industry even more. Exports of US liquefied natural gas now put an effective ceiling on global prices, and debates over a clean electricity push have intensified when gas prices spike.

On top of all this, there is also the renewables’ revolution, though a green revolution has not been guaranteed in the near term. Around the world, wind and solar have become ever-cheaper options to generate electricity. Storage costs have also dropped and network management improved. Even in the US, renewables are displacing coal and gas. Electrification of vehicle fleets will damp demand further, as U.S. electricity, gas, and EVs face evolving pressures.

Eliminating fossil fuel consumption completely would require sustained and costly government intervention, and reliability challenges such as coal and nuclear disruptions add to the complexity. That is far from certain. Meanwhile, though, market forces are depressing the sector’s usual profitability.

The end of oil and gas is not immediately around the corner. Still, the end of hydrocarbons as a lucrative industry is a distinct possibility. We are seeing that in dramatic form in the current oil price crash. But this collapse is merely a message from the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News