Utility capital spending to top $250 billion in U.S.

U.S. Utility Spending Shift highlights rising transmission and distribution costs, grid modernization, and smart meters, while generation expenses decline amid fuel price volatility, capital and labor pressures, and renewable integration across the power sector.

Key Points

A decade-long trend where utilities spend more on delivery and grid upgrades, and less on electricity generation costs.

✅ Delivery O&M, wires, poles, and meters drive rising costs

✅ Generation spending declines amid fuel price changes and PPI

✅ Grid upgrades add reliability, resilience, and renewable integration

Over the past decade, major utilities in the United States have been spending more on delivering electricity to customers and less on producing that electricity, a shift occurring as electricity demand is flat across many regions.

After adjusting for inflation, major utilities spent 2.6 cents per kilowatthour (kWh) on electricity delivery in 2010, using 2020 dollars. In comparison, spending on delivery was 65% higher in 2020 at 4.3 cents/kWh, and residential bills rose in 2022 as inflation persisted. Conversely, utility spending on power production decreased from 6.8 cents/kWh in 2010 (using 2020 dollars) to 4.6 cents/kWh in 2020.

Utility spending on electricity delivery includes the money spent to build, operate, and maintain the electric wires, poles, towers, and meters that make up the transmission and distribution system. In real 2020 dollar terms, spending on electricity delivery increased every year from 1998 to 2020 as utilities worked to replace aging equipment, build transmission infrastructure to accommodate new wind and solar generation amid clean energy transition challenges that affect costs, and install new technologies such as smart meters to increase the efficiency, reliability, resilience, and security of the U.S. power grid.

Spending on power production includes the money spent to build, operate, fuel, and maintain power plants, as well as the cost to purchase power in cases where the utility either does not own generators or does not generate enough to fulfill customer demand. Spending on electricity production includes the cost of fuels including natural gas prices alongside capital, labor, and building materials, as well as the type of generators being built.

Other utility spending on electricity includes general and administrative expenses, general infrastructure such as office space, and spending on intangible goods such as licenses and franchise fees, even as electricity sales declined in recent years.

The retail price of electricity reflects the cost to produce and deliver power, the rate of return on investment that regulated utilities are allowed, and profits for unregulated power suppliers, and, as electricity prices at 41-year high have been reported, these components have drawn increased scrutiny.

In 2021, demand for consumer goods and the energy needed to produce them has been outpacing supply, though power demand sliding in 2023 with milder weather has also been noted. This difference has contributed to higher prices for fuels used by electric generators, especially natural gas. The increased cost for fuel, capital, labor, and building materials, as seen in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Producer Price Index, is increasing the cost of power production for 2021. U.S. average electricity prices have been higher every month of this year compared with 2020, according to our Monthly Electric Power Industry Report.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Quinone-mediated fuel cell uses a bio-inspired organic shuttle to carry electrons and protons to a nearby cobalt catalyst, improving hydrogen conversion, cutting platinum dependence, and raising efficiency while lowering costs for clean electricity.

Key Points

An affordable, bio-inspired fuel cell using an organic quinone shuttle and cobalt catalyst to move electrons efficiently

✅ Organic quinone shuttles electrons to a separate cobalt catalyst

✅ Reduces platinum use, lowering cost of hydrogen power

✅ Bio-inspired design aims to boost efficiency and durability

Fuel cells have long been viewed as a promising power source. But most fuel cells are too expensive, inefficient, or both. In a new approach, inspired by biology, a team has designed a fuel cell using cheaper materials and an organic compound that shuttles electrons and protons.

Fuel cells have long been viewed as a promising power source. These devices, invented in the 1830s, generate electricity directly from chemicals, such as hydrogen and oxygen, and produce only water vapor as emissions. But most fuel cells are too expensive, inefficient, or both.

In a new approach, inspired by biology and published today (Oct. 3, 2018) in the journal Joule, a University of Wisconsin-Madison team has designed a fuel cell using cheaper materials and an organic compound that shuttles electrons and protons.

In a traditional fuel cell, the electrons and protons from hydrogen are transported from one electrode to another, where they combine with oxygen to produce water. This process converts chemical energy into electricity. To generate a meaningful amount of charge in a short enough amount of time, a catalyst is needed to accelerate the reactions.

Right now, the best catalyst on the market is platinum -- but it comes with a high price tag, and while advances like low-cost heat-to-electric materials show promise, they address different conversion pathways. This makes fuel cells expensive and is one reason why there are only a few thousand vehicles running on hydrogen fuel currently on U.S. roads.

Shannon Stahl, the UW-Madison professor of chemistry who led the study in collaboration with Thatcher Root, a professor of chemical and biological engineering, says less expensive metals can be used as catalysts in current fuel cells, but only if used in large quantities. "The problem is, when you attach too much of a catalyst to an electrode, the material becomes less effective," he says, "leading to a loss of energy efficiency."

The team's solution was to pack a lower-cost metal, cobalt, into a reactor nearby, where the larger quantity of material doesn't interfere with its performance. The team then devised a strategy to shuttle electrons and protons back and forth from this reactor to the fuel cell.

The right vehicle for this transport proved to be an organic compound, called a quinone, that can carry two electrons and protons at a time. In the team's design, a quinone picks up these particles at the fuel cell electrode, transports them to the nearby reactor filled with an inexpensive cobalt catalyst, and then returns to the fuel cell to pick up more "passengers."

Many quinones degrade into a tar-like substance after only a few round trips. Stahl's lab, however, designed an ultra-stable quinone derivative. By modifying its structure, the team drastically slowed down the deterioration of the quinone. In fact, the compounds they assembled last up to 5,000 hours -- a more than 100-fold increase in lifetime compared to previous quinone structures.

"While it isn't the final solution, our concept introduces a new approach to address the problems in this field," says Stahl. He notes that the energy output of his new design produces about 20 percent of what is possible in hydrogen fuel cells currently on the market. On the other hand, the system is about 100 times more effective than biofuel cells that use related organic shuttles.

The next step for Stahl and his team is to bump up the performance of the quinone mediators, allowing them to shuttle electrons more effectively and produce more power. This advance would allow their design to match the performance of conventional fuel cells, but with a lower price tag.

"The ultimate goal for this project is to give industry carbon-free options for creating electricity, including thermoelectric materials that harvest waste heat," says Colin Anson, a postdoctoral researcher in the Stahl lab and publication co-author. "The objective is to find out what industry needs and create a fuel cell that fills that hole."

This step in the development of a cheaper alternative could eventually be a boon for companies like Amazon and Home Depot that already use hydrogen fuel cells to drive forklifts in their warehouses.

"In spite of major obstacles, the hydrogen economy, with efforts such as storing electricity in pipelines in Europe, seems to be growing," adds Stahl, "one step at a time."

Financial support for this project was provided by the Center for Molecular Electrocatalysis, an Energy Frontier Research Center funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, and by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) through the WARF Accelerator Program.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

EU Gas Price Cap Strategies aim to curb inflation during an energy crisis by capping wholesale gas and electricity generation costs, balancing supply and demand, mitigating subsidies, and safeguarding supply security amid Russia-Ukraine shocks.

Key Points

Temporary EU measures to cap gas and power prices, curb inflation, manage demand, and protect supply security.

✅ Flexible temporary price limits to secure gas supplies

✅ Framework cap on gas for electricity generation with demand checks

✅ Risk: subsidies, higher demand, and market distortions

The European Commission has outlined possible strategies to cap gas prices as the bloc faces a looming energy crisis this winter. 

Member states are divided over the emergency measures designed to pull down soaring inflation amid Russia's war in Ukraine. 

One proposal is a temporary "flexible" limit on gas prices to ensure that Europe can continue to secure enough gas, EU energy commissioner Kadri Simson said on Tuesday. 

Another option could be an EU-wide "framework" for a price cap on gas used to generate electricity, which would be combined with measures to ensure gas demand does not rise as a result, she said.

EU leaders are meeting on Friday to debate gas price cap strategies amid warnings that Europe's energy nightmare could worsen this winter.

Last week, France, Italy, Poland and 12 other EU countries urged the Commission to propose a broader price cap targeting all wholesale gas trade. 

But Germany -- Europe's biggest gas buyer -- and the Netherlands are among those opposing electricity market reforms within the bloc.

Russia has slashed gas deliveries to Europe since its February invasion of Ukraine, with Moscow blaming the cuts on Western sanctions imposed in response to the invasion, as the EU advances a plan to dump Russian energy across the bloc.

Since then, the EU has agreed on emergency laws to fill gas storage and windfall profit levies to raise money to help consumers with bills. 

Price cap critics
One energy analyst told Euronews that an energy price cap was an "unchartered territory" for the European Union. 

The EU's energy sector is largely liberalised and operates under the fundamental rules of supply and demand, making rolling back electricity prices complex in practice.

"My impression is that member states are looking at prices and quantities in isolation and that's difficult because of economics," said Elisabetta Cornago, a senior energy researcher at the Centre for European Reform.

"It's hard to picture such a level of market intervention This is uncharted territory."

The energy price cap would "quickly start costing billions" because it would force governments to continually subsidise the difference between the real market price and the artificially capped price, another expert said. 

"If you are successful and prices are low and you still get gas, consumers will increase their demand: low price means high demand. Especially now that winter is coming," said Bram Claeys, a senior advisor at the Regulatory Assistance Project. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Clean Power Plan Rollback signals EPA's shift to inside-the-fence efficiency at coal plants, emphasizing heat-rate improvements over sector-wide decarbonization, renewables, natural gas switching, demand-side efficiency, and carbon capture under Clean Air Act constraints.

Key Points

A policy shift by the EPA to replace broad emissions rules with plant-level efficiency standards, limiting CO2 cuts.

✅ Inside-the-fence heat-rate improvements at coal units

✅ Potential CO2 cuts limited to about 6% per plant

✅ Alternatives: fuel switching, renewables, carbon capture

President Barack Obama’s signature plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electrical generation took years to develop and touched every aspect of power production and use, from smokestacks to home insulation.

The Trump administration is moving to scrap that plan and has signaled that any alternative it might adopt would take a much less expansive approach, possibly just telling utilities to operate their plants more efficiently.

That’s a strategy environmentalists say is almost certain to fall short of what’s needed.

The Trump administration is making "a wholesale retreat from EPA’s legal, scientific and moral obligation to address the threats of climate change," said former Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy, the architect of Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

President Donald Trump promised to rip up the initiative, echoing an end to the 'war on coal' message from his campaign, which mandated that states change their overall power mix, displacing coal-fired electricity with that from wind, solar and natural gas. The EPA is about to make it official, arguing the prior administration violated the Clean Air Act by requiring those broad changes to the electricity sector, according to a draft obtained by Bloomberg.

Possible Replacements

Later, the agency will also ask the public to weigh in on possible replacements. The administration will ask whether the EPA can or should develop a replacement rule -- and, if so, what actions can be mandated at individual power plants, though some policymakers favor a clean electricity standard to drive broader decarbonization.

Follow the Trump Administration’s Every Move

Such changes -- such as adding automation or replacing worn turbine seals -- would yield at most a 6 percent gain in efficiency, along with a corresponding fall in greenhouse gas emissions, according to earlier modeling by the Environmental Protection Agency and other analysts. That compares to the 32 percent drop in emissions by 2030 under Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

"In these existing plants, there’s only so many places to look for savings," said John Larsen, a director of the Rhodium Group, a research firm. "There’s only so many opportunities within a big spinning machine like that."

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt outlined such an "inside-the-fence-line" approach in 2014, later embodied in the Affordable Clean Energy rule that industry groups backed, when he served as Oklahoma’s attorney general. Under his blueprint, states would set emissions standards after a detailed unit-by-unit analysis, looking at what reductions are possible given "the engineering limits of each facility."

The EPA has not decided whether it will promulgate a new rule at all, though it has also proposed new pollution limits for coal and gas plants in separate actions. In a forthcoming advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA will ask "what inside-the-fence-line options are legal, feasible and appropriate," according to a document obtained by Bloomberg.

Increased efficiency at a coal plant -- known as heat-rate improvement -- translates into fewer carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of electric power generated.

Under Obama, the EPA envisioned utilities would make some straightforward efficiency improvements at coal-fired power plants as the first step to comply with the Clean Power Plan. But that was expected to coincide with bigger, broader changes -- such as using more cleaner-burning natural gas, adding more renewable power projects and simply encouraging customers to do a better job turning down their thermostats and turning off their lights.

Obama’s EPA didn’t ask utilities to wring every ounce of efficiency they could out of coal-fired power plants because they saw the other options as cheaper. A plant-specific approach "would be grossly insufficient to address the public health and environmental impacts from CO2 emissions," Obama’s EPA said.

That approach might yield modest emissions reductions and, in a perverse twist, might event have the opposite effect. If utilities make coal plants more efficient -- thereby driving down operating costs -- they also make them more competitive with natural gas and renewables, "so they might run more and pollute more," said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director for the Clean Air Task Force.  

In a competitive market, any improvement in emissions produced for each unit of energy could be overwhelmed by an increase in electrical output, and debates over changes to electricity pricing under Trump and Perry added further uncertainty.

"A very minor heat rate improvement program would very likely result in increased emissions," Schneider said. "It might be worse than nothing."

Power companies want to get as much electricity as possible from every pound of coal, so they already have an incentive to keep efficiency high, said Jeff Holmstead, a former assistant EPA administrator now at Bracewell LLP. But an EPA regulation known as “new source review” has discouraged some from making those changes, for fear of triggering other pollution-control requirements, he said.

"If EPA’s replacement rule allows companies to improve efficiency without triggering new source review, it would make a real difference in terms of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions," Holmstead said.

Modest Impact

A plant-specific approach doesn’t have to mean modest impact.

"If you’re thinking about what can be done at the power plants by themselves, you don’t stop at efficiency tune-ups," said David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate and clean air program. "You look at things like switching to natural gas or installing carbon capture and storage."

Requirements that facilities use carbon capture technology or swap in natural gas for coal could actually come close to hitting the same goals as in Obama’s Clean Power Plan -- if not go even further, Schneider said. They just would cost more.

The benefit of the Clean Power Plan "is that it enabled states to create programs and enabled companies to find a reduction strategy that was the most efficient and made the most sense for their own content," said Kathryn Zyla, deputy director of the Georgetown Climate Center. "And that flexibility was really important for the states and companies."

Some utilities, including Houston-based Calpine Corp., PG&E Corp. and Dominion Resources Inc., backed the Obama-era approach. And they are still pushing the Trump administration to be creative now.

"The Clean Power Plan achieved a thoughtful, balanced approach that gave companies and states considerable flexibility on how best to pursue that goal," said Melissa Lavinson, vice president of federal affairs and policy for PG&E’s Pacific Gas and Electric utility. “We look forward to working with the administration to devise an alternative plan for decarbonizing the U.S. economy."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Twin States Clean Energy Link connects New England to Hydro-Quebec via a 1,200 MW transmission line, DOE-backed capacity, underground segments, existing corridors, boosting renewable energy reliability across Vermont and New Hampshire with cross-border grid flexibility.

Key Points

DOE-backed 1,200 MW line linking Hydro-Quebec to New England, adding clean capacity with underground routes.

✅ 1,200 MW cross-border capacity for the New England grid

✅ Uses existing corridors; underground in VT and northern NH

✅ DOE capacity contract lowers risk and spurs investment

A proposal to build a new transmission line to connect New England with Canadian hydropower is one step closer to reality.

The U.S. Department of Energy announced Monday that it has selected the Twin States Clean Energy Link as one of three transmission projects that will be part of its $1.3 billion cross-border transmission initiative to add capacity to the grid.

WBUR is a nonprofit news organization. Our coverage relies on your financial support. If you value articles like the one you're reading right now, give today.

Twin States is a proposal from National Grid, a utility company that serves Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island, and also owns transmission in England and Wales as the region advances projects like the Scotland-to-England subsea link that expand renewable flows, and the non-profit Citizens Energy Corporation.

The transmission line would connect New England with power from Hydro-Quebec, moving into the United States from Canada in Northern Vermont and crossing into New Hampshire near Dalton. It would run through parts of Grafton, Merrimack, and Hillsborough counties, routing through a substation in Dunbarton and ending at a proposed new substation in Londonderry. (Here's a map of the Twin States proposal.)

The federal funding will allow the U.S. Department of Energy to purchase capacity on the planned transmission line, which officials say reduces the risk for other investors and can help encourage others to purchase capacity.

The project has gotten support from local officials in Vermont and New Hampshire, but there are still hurdles to cross. The contract negotiation process is beginning, National Grid said, and the proposal still needs approvals from regulators before construction could begin.

First Nations communities in Canada have opposed transmission lines connecting Hydro-Quebec with New England in the past, and the company has faced scrutiny from environmental groups.

What would Twin States look like?
Transmission projects, like the failed Northern Pass proposal, have been controversial in New England, though the Great Northern Transmission Line progressed in Minnesota.

But Reihaneh Irani-Famili, vice president of capital delivery, project management and construction at National Grid, said this one is different because the developers listened to community concerns before planning the project.

“They did not want new corridors of infrastructure, so we made sure that we're using existing right of way,” she said. “They did not want the visual impact and some of the newer corridors of infrastructure, we're making sure we're undergrounding portions of the line.”

In Vermont and northern New Hampshire, the transmission lines would be buried underground along state roads. South of Littleton, they would be located within existing transmission corridors.

The developers say the lines could provide 1,200 megawatts of transmission capacity. The project would have the ability to carry electricity from hydro facilities in Quebec to New England, and would also be able to bring electricity from New England into Quebec, a step toward broader macrogrid connectivity across regions.

“Those hydro dams become giant green batteries for the region, and they hold that water until we need the electrons,” Irani-Famili said. “So if you think about our energy system not as one that sees borders, but one that sees resources, this is connecting the Quebec resources to the New England resources and helping all of us get into that cleaner energy future with a lot less build than we otherwise would have.”

Irani-Famili says the transmission line could help facilitate more clean energy resources like offshore wind coming online. In a report released last week by New Hampshire’s Department of Energy, authors said importing Canadian hydropower could be one of the most cost-effective ways to move away from fossil fuels on the electric grid.

National Grid estimates the project will help save energy customers $8.3 billion in its first 12 years. The developers are constructing a $260 million “community benefits plan” that would take some profits from the transmission line and give that money back to communities that host the transmission lines and environmental justice communities in New England.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Bruce C Project advances Ontario clean energy with NRCan funding for nuclear reactors, impact assessment, licensing, and Indigenous engagement, delivering reliable baseload power and low-carbon electricity through pre-development studies at Bruce Power.

Key Points

A proposed nuclear build at Bruce Power, backed by NRCan funding for studies, licensing, and impact assessment to expand clean power.

✅ Up to $50M NRCan support for pre-development

✅ Focus: feasibility, impact assessment, licensing

✅ Early Indigenous and community engagement

Canada's clean energy landscape received a significant boost recently with the announcement of federal funding for the Bruce Power's Bruce C Project. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) pledged up to $50 million to support pre-development work for this potential new nuclear build on the Bruce Power site. This collaboration between federal and provincial governments signifies a shared commitment to a cleaner energy future for Ontario and Canada.

The Bruce C Project, if it comes to fruition, has the potential to be a significant addition to Ontario's clean energy grid. The project envisions constructing new nuclear reactors at the existing Bruce Power facility, located on the shores of Lake Huron. Nuclear energy is a reliable source of clean electricity generation, as evidenced by Bruce Power's operating record during the pandemic, producing minimal greenhouse gas emissions during operation.

The funding announced by NRCan will be used to conduct crucial pre-development studies. These studies will assess the feasibility of the project from various angles, including technical considerations, environmental impact assessments, and Indigenous and community engagement, informed by lessons from a major refurbishment that required a Bruce reactor to be taken offline, to ensure thorough planning. Obtaining a license to prepare the site and completing an impact assessment are also key objectives for this pre-development phase.

This financial support from the federal government aligns with both national and provincial clean energy goals. The "Powering Canada Forward" plan, spearheaded by NRCan, emphasizes building a clean, reliable, and affordable electricity system across the country. Ontario's "Powering Ontario's Growth" plan echoes these objectives, focusing on investment options, such as the province's first SMR project, to electrify the province's economy and meet its growing clean energy demand.

"Ontario has one of the cleanest electricity grids in the world and the nuclear industry is leading the way," stated Mike Rencheck, President and CEO of Bruce Power. He views this project as a prime example of collaboration between federal and provincial entities, along with the private sector, where recent manufacturing contracts underscore industry capacity.

Nuclear energy, however, remains a topic of debate. While proponents highlight its role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing reliable baseload power, opponents raise concerns about nuclear waste disposal and potential safety risks. The pre-development studies funded by NRCan will need to thoroughly address these concerns as part of the project's evaluation.

Transparency and open communication with local communities and Indigenous groups will also be crucial for the project's success. Early engagement activities facilitated by the funding will allow for open dialogue and address any potential concerns these stakeholders might have.

The Bruce C Project is still in its early stages. The pre-development work funded by NRCan will provide valuable data to determine the project's viability. If the project moves forward, it has the potential to significantly contribute to Ontario's clean energy future, while also creating jobs and economic benefits for local communities and suppliers.

However, the project faces challenges. Public perception of nuclear energy and the lengthy regulatory process are hurdles that will need to be addressed, as debates around the Pickering B refurbishment have highlighted in Ontario. Additionally, ensuring cost-effectiveness and demonstrating the project's long-term economic viability will be critical for securing broader support.

The next few years will be crucial for the Bruce C Project. The pre-development work funded by NRCan will be instrumental in determining its feasibility. If successful, this project could be a game-changer for Ontario's clean energy future, building on the province's Pickering life extensions to strengthen system adequacy, offering a reliable, low-carbon source of electricity for the province and beyond.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News