Google uses wind to power data centres

Ontario-U.S. Energy Tariff Dispute highlights cross-border trade tensions, retaliatory tariffs, export surcharges, and White House negotiations as Doug Ford meets U.S. officials to de-escalate pressure over steel, aluminum, and energy supplies.

Key Points

A trade standoff over energy exports and tariffs, sparked by Ontario's surcharge and U.S. duties on steel and aluminum.

✅ 25% Ontario energy surcharge paused before White House talks

✅ U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs reduced from 50% to 25%

✅ Potential energy supply cutoff remains leverage in negotiations

Ontario Premier Doug Ford's recent high-stakes diplomatic trip to Washington, D.C., underscores the delicate trade tensions between Canada and the United States, particularly concerning energy exports and Canada's electricity exports across the border. Ford's potential use of tariffs or even halting U.S. energy supplies, amid Ontario's energy independence considerations, remains a powerful leverage tool, one that could either de-escalate or intensify the ongoing trade conflict between the two neighboring nations.

The meeting in Washington follows a turbulent series of events that began with Ontario's imposition of a 25% surcharge on energy exports to the U.S. This move came in retaliation to what Ontario perceived as unfair treatment in trade agreements, a step that aligned with Canadian support for tariffs at the time. In response, U.S. President Donald Trump's administration threatened its own set of tariffs, specifically targeting Canadian steel and aluminum, which further escalated tensions. U.S. officials labeled Ford's threat to cut off U.S. electricity exports and energy supplies as "egregious and insulting," warning of significant economic retaliation.

However, shortly after these heated exchanges, Trump’s commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, extended an invitation to Ford for a direct meeting at the White House. Ford described this gesture as an "olive branch," signaling a potential de-escalation of the dispute. In the lead-up to this diplomatic encounter, Ford agreed to pause the energy surcharge, allowing the meeting to proceed, amid concerns tariffs could spike NY energy prices, without further escalating the crisis. Trump's administration responded by lowering its proposed 50% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum to a more manageable 25%.

The outcome of the meeting, which is set to address these critical issues, could have lasting implications for trade relations between Canada and the U.S. If Ford and Lutnick can reach an agreement, the potential for tariff imposition on energy exports, though experts advise against cutting Quebec's energy exports due to broader risks, could be resolved. However, if the talks fail, it is likely that both countries could face further retaliatory measures, compounding the economic strain on both sides.

As Canada and the U.S. continue to navigate these complex issues, where support for Canadian energy projects has risen, the outcome of Ford's meeting with Lutnick will be closely watched, as it could either defuse the tensions or set the stage for a prolonged trade battle.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Coal-to-Gas Transition will retire coal units, convert plants to natural gas, boost renewables, and affect electricity prices, with policy tools like a price cap and carbon tax shaping the power market.

Key Points

Shift retiring coal units and converting to natural gas and renewables, targeting coal elimination by 2030.

✅ TransAlta retires Sundance coal unit; more units convert to gas.

✅ Forward prices seen near $40 to low $50/MWh in 2018.

✅ 6.8-cent cap shields consumers; carbon tax backstops costs.

The turn of the calendar to 2018 saw TransAlta retire one of its coal power generating units at its Sundance plant west of Edmonton and mothball another as it begins the transition to cleaner sources of energy across Alberta.

The company will say goodbye to three more units over the next year and a half to prepare them for conversion to natural gas.

This is part of a fundamental shift in Alberta, which will see coal power retired ahead of schedule by 2030, replaced by a mix of natural gas and renewable sources.

“We’re going to see that transition continue right up from now until 2030, and likely beyond 2030 as wind generation starts to outpace coal and new technologies become available.”

Coal has long been the backbone of Alberta’s grid, currently providing nearly 40 per cent of the provinces power. Analysts believe removing it will come with a cost to consumers, according to a report on coal phase-out costs published recently.

“The open question over the next couple of years is whether they’re going to inch up gradually, or whether they’re going to inch up like they did in 2012 and 2013, by having periods of very high power prices.”

Albertans are currently paying historically low power prices, with generation costs last year averaging below $23/MWh, less than half of the average of the past 10 years.

A report released in mid-December by electricity consultant firm EDC Associates showed forward prices moving from the $40/MWh in the first three months of 2018, to the low $50/MWh range.

“The forwards tend to take several weeks to fully react to announcements, so its anticipated that prices will continue to gradually track upwards over the coming weeks,” the report reads.

The NDP government has taken steps to protect consumers against price surges. Last spring, a price cap of 6.8 cents/MWh was put in place until the spring of 2021, with any cost above that to be covered by carbon tax revenue.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Texas Electricity Market Bailout proposes securitization bonds and ERCOT-backed fees after Winter Storm Uri, spreading costs via ratepayer charges on power bills to stabilize generators, co-ops, and retailers and avert bankruptcies and investor flight.

Key Points

State plan to securitize storm debts via ERCOT fees, adding bill charges to stabilize Texas power firms.

✅ Securitization bonds finance unpaid ancillary services and energy costs

✅ ERCOT fee spreads Winter Storm Uri debts across ratepayers statewide

✅ Aims to prevent bankruptcies, preserve grid reliability, reassure investors

An approximately $2.5 billion plan to bail out Texas’ distressed electricity market from the financial crisis caused by Winter Storm Uri in February has been approved by the Texas House.

The legislation would impose a fee — likely for the next decade or longer — on electricity companies, which would then get passed on to residential and business customers in their power bills, even as some utilities waived certain fees earlier in the crisis.

House lawmakers sent House Bill 4492 to the Senate on Thursday after a 129-15 vote. A similar bill is advancing in the Senate.

Some of the state’s electricity providers and generators are financially underwater in the aftermath of the February power outages, which left millions without power and killed more than 100 people. Electricity companies had to buy whatever power was available at the maximum rate allowed by Texas regulations — $9,000 per megawatt hour — during the week of the storm (the average price for power in 2020 was $22 per megawatt hour). Natural gas fuel prices also spiked more than 700% during the storm.

Several companies are nearing default on their bills to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages the Texas power grid that covers most of the state and facilitates financial transactions in it.

Rural electric cooperatives were especially hard hit; Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, which supplies electricity to 1.5 million customers, filed for bankruptcy citing a $1.8 billion debt to ERCOT.

State Rep. Chris Paddie, R-Marshall, the bill’s author, said a second bailout bill will be necessary during the current legislative session for severely distressed electric cooperatives.

“This is a financial crisis, and it’s a big one,” James Schaefer, a senior managing director at Guggenheim Partners, an investment bank, told lawmakers at a House State Affairs Committee hearing in early April. He warned that more bankruptcies would cause higher costs to customers and hurt the state’s image in the eyes of investors.

“You’ve got to free the system,” Schaefer said. “It’s horrible that a bunch of folks have to pay, but it’s a system-wide failure. If you let a bunch of folks crash, it’s not a good look for your state.”

If approved by the Senate and Gov. Greg Abbott, a newly-created Texas Electric Securitization Corp. would use the money raised from the fees for bonds to help pay the companies’ debts, including costs for ancillary services, a financial product that helps ensure power is continuously generated and improve electricity reliability across the grid.

Paddie told his colleagues Wednesday that he could not yet estimate how long the new fee would be imposed, but during committee hearings lawmakers estimated it’s likely to be at least a decade. Several other bills to spread out the costs of the winter storm and consider market reforms are also moving through the Legislature.

ERCOT’s independent market monitor recommended in March that energy sold during that period be repriced at a lower rate, which would have allowed ERCOT to claw back about $4.2 billion in payments to power generators, but the Public Utility Commission declined to do so, even as a court ruling on plant obligations in emergencies drew scrutiny among market participants.

Instead, lawmakers are pushing for bailouts that several energy experts have said is needed, both to ensure distressed companies don’t pass enormous costs on to their customers and to prevent electricity investors and companies from leaving the state if it’s viewed as too risky to continue doing business.

Becky Klein, an energy consultant in Austin and former chair of the Public Utility Commission who played a key role in de-regulating Texas’ electricity market two decades ago, said during a retail electricity panel hosted by Integrate that legislation is necessary to provide “some kind of backstop during a crazy market crisis like this to show the financial market that we’re willing to provide some relief.”

Still, some lawmakers are concerned with how they will win public support, including potential voter-approved funding measures, for bills to bail out the state’s electricity market.

“I have to go back to Laredo and say, ‘I know you didn’t have electricity for several days, but now I’m going to make you pay a little more for the next 20 years,’” state Rep. Richard Peña Raymond, D-Laredo, said during an early April discussion on the plan in the House State Affairs Committee. He said he voted for the bill because it’s in the best interest of the state.

Paddie, during the same committee hearing, acknowledged that “none of us want to increase fees or taxes.” However, he said, “We have to deal with the reality set before us.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Tucson Electric Power Coal Phaseout advances an Integrated Resource Plan to exit Springerville coal by 2032, lift renewables past 70 percent by 2035, add wind, solar, battery storage, and cut carbon emissions 80 percent.

Key Points

A 2032 coal exit and 2035 plan to lift renewables above 70 percent, add wind, solar, storage, and cut CO2 80 percent.

✅ Coal purchases end at Springerville units by 2032

✅ Renewables exceed 70 percent of load by 2035

✅ 80 percent CO2 cut from 2005 baseline via wind, solar, storage

In a dramatic policy shift, Tucson Electric Power says it will stop using coal to generate electricity by 2032 and will increase renewable energy's share of its energy load to more than 70% by 2035.

As part of that change, the utility will stop buying electricity from its two units at its coal-fired Springerville Generating Station by 2032. The plant, TEP's biggest power source, provides about 35% of its energy.

The utility already had planned to start up two New Mexico wind farms and a solar storage plant in the Tucson area by next year. The new plan calls for adding an additional 2,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity by 2035.

The utility's switch from fossil fuels is spelled out in the plan, submitted to the Arizona Corporation Commission, amid shifts in federal power plant rules that could affect implementation. Called an Integrated Resource Plan, it would reduce TEP's carbon dioxide emissions 80% by 2035 compared with 2005 levels.

The plan drew generally positive reviews from a number of environmentalists and other representatives of an advisory committee that had worked with TEP for a year.

Two commissioners, Chairman Bob Burns and Tucsonan Lea Marquez Peterson, also generally praised the plan, although they held off on final judgment.

University of Arizona researchers said the plan would likely meet the utility's share of the worldwide goal of holding down global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius, or about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above pre-industrial levels, even as studies find that climate change threatens grid reliability in many regions.

But a representative of AARP and the Pima Council on Aging expressed concern because the plan would require 1% annual electric rate increases a year to put into effect.

Officials in the eastern Arizona town of Springerville aren't happy.

And Sierra Club official Sandy Bahr said the plan doesn't move fast enough to get TEP off coal. She listed 14 separate units of various Western coal-fired plants that are scheduled to shut down sooner than 2032, many in the 2020s.

But TEP says the plan best balances costs and environmental benefits compared with 24 others it reviewed.

"We know our customers want safe, reliable energy from resources that are both affordable and environmentally responsible. TEP's 2020 Integrated Resource Plan will help us maintain that delicate balance," TEP CEO David Hutchens wrote in the forward to the plan.

The plan isn't legally binding but is aimed at sending a signal to regulators and the public about TEP's future direction. TEP and other regulated Arizona utilities update such plans every three years.

TEP has been one of the West's more fossil-fuel-friendly utilities. It stuck with coal even as many other utilities were moving away from it, including Alliant Energy's carbon-neutral plan to cut emissions and costs, and as the Sierra Club called on utilities to move beyond what it termed a highly polluting energy source that emits large quantities of heat-trapping greenhouse gases linked by scientists to global warming.

Last year, TEP got 13% of its electricity from renewables such as wind farms and solar plants along with photovoltaic solar panels atop individual homes. Fossil fuels coal and natural gas supplied the rest, a University of Arizona study paid for by TEP found.

Economics, not just emissions, a big factor

TEP's previous resource plan, from 2017, called for boosting renewable use to 30% by 2030 and to cut coal to 38% of its electric load by then from 69% in 2017, reflecting broader 2017 utility trends across the industry.

A TEP official said last week the utility is heading in a different direction not only due to concerns about greenhouse gas emissions but because of changing economics.

"For the last several decades, coal was the most economical resource. It was the lowest-cost resource to supply energy for our customers, and it wasn't really close," said Jeff Yockey, TEP's resource planning director.

But over the past few years, first natural gas prices and more recently solar and wind energy prices have fallen dramatically, he said.

Their prices are projected to keep falling, along with the cost of battery-fueled storage of solar energy for use when the sun is down, he said.

"Coal just isn't the most economical resource" now, Yockey said.

Yet the utility still needs, for now, the extra energy capacity that coal provides, he said, even as other states outline ways to improve grid reliability through targeted investments.

"Being a utility with no nuclear or hydro(electric) energy, with coal, there is reliability, a fuel on the ground, 30 or 90 days supply," he said. "It's the only source not subject to disruption in the next hour. It's our only long-term, stable fuel supply. Over time, we will be able to overcome that."

UA researchers, community panel worked on plan

TEP paid the UA $100,000 to have three researchers prepare two reports, one comparing 24 different proposals and a second comparing TEP's fossil fuel/renewable split with those of other utilities.

Also, the utility appointed an advisory council representing environmental, business and government interests that met regularly to guide TEP in producing the plan. The utility chose a preferred energy "portfolio," Yockey said.

The goal "was very much about basically achieving significant emissions reductions as quickly as we can and as cost effectively as we can," he said. TEP wanted the biggest cumulative emission cut possible over 15 years.

"If it was just about cost, we wouldn't have selected the portfolio that we selected. It wasn't the lowest cost portfolio."

UA assistant research professors Ben McMahan and Will Holmgren said combined carbon dioxide emission reductions from TEP's new plan over 15 years would be expected to hit the Paris accord's 2-degree target.

"There is considerable uncertainty about what will happen between now and 2050, but the preferred portfolio's early start on reductions and lowest cumulative emissions is certainly a positive sign that well below 2C is achievable," the researchers said in an email.

Environmentalists pleased, but some want coal cut sooner

The Sierra Club, Western Resource Advocates, the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project and Pima County offered varying degrees of praise for the new TEP plan.

In a memo Friday, County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry congratulated TEP for "the comprehensive, inclusive and transparent process" used to develop the plan.

Because of UA's involvement, TEP's advisory council and the public "can feel confident that the utility is on track to make significant progress in curbing greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change," Huckelberry wrote.

The TEP plan "is the most aggressive commitment to reducing emissions by a utility in Arizona," said Autumn Johnson of Western Resource Advocates in a news release.

"Adding clean energy generation and storage while accelerating the retirement of coal units will ensure a healthier and better future for Arizonans," said Johnson, an energy policy analyst in Phoenix.

The Sierra Club will have a technical expert review the plan and already wants more energy savings, said Bahr, director of the group's Grand Canyon chapter. But overall, this plan is a step in the right direction for TEP, she said.

By comparison, Arizona Public Service's new resource plan only calls for 45% renewable energy by 2030, Bahr noted, while California regulators consider more power plants to ensure reliability. APS committed to going coal-free by 2031.

A Sierra Club proposal that the UA reviewed called for TEP to quit coal by 2027.

But TEP analyzed that proposal and concluded it would require $300 million in investments and would reduce the utility's cumulative emissions by only 2.4 million tons, to 70.2 million tons by 2035, Yockey said.

The Sierra Club plan was the most expensive portfolio investigated, Yockey said.

"The difference is in the timing. We still have a fair amount of value in our coal plants which we need to depreciate, which we do over time," Yockey said. "Trying to replace the capacity that coal provides in the near term with storage and solar is very expensive, although those costs are declining."

Seniors on fixed incomes could be hurt, advocate says

Rene Pina, an advisory council member representing two senior citizen organizations, praised the plan's goals but was concerned about impacts of even 1% annual rate increases on elderly people on fixed incomes.

They can't always handle such an increase, he said.

One possible fix is that TEP could ease eligibility requirements for its low-income energy assistance program, aligning with equity-focused electricity regulation principles, to allow more seniors to benefit, said Pina, representing AARP and the Pima Council on Aging.

"The program is structured so it just barely disqualifies most of our seniors. Their social security pension is just barely over the low-income limit. It can easily be adjusted without any problems to the utility," Pina said.

Advisory council member Rob Lamb, an engineer with GHLN, an architecture-engineering firm, said he was very pleased with TEP's plan.

"One of the things a lot of people don't realize when they put together a plan like that, is they have to balance environment with 'Hey, what's the reliability of service? Are we going to be able to keep our rates for something that will work?'" Lamb said.

"This a very balanced and resilient portfolio."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Fukushima Daiichi decommissioning delay highlights TEPCO's revised timeline, spent fuel removal at Units 1 and 2, safety enclosures, decontamination, fuel debris extraction by robot arm, and contaminated water management under stricter radiation control.

Key Points

A government revised schedule pushing back spent fuel removal and decommissioning milestones at Fukushima Daiichi.

✅ TEPCO delays spent fuel removal at Units 1 and 2 for safety.

✅ Enclosures, decontamination, and robotics mitigate radioactive risk.

✅ Contaminated water cut target: 170 tons/day to 100 by 2025.

The Japanese government decided Friday to delay the removal of spent fuel from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant's Nos. 1 and 2 reactors by as much as five years, casting doubt on whether it can stick to its timeframe for dismantling the crippled complex.

The process of removing the spent fuel from the units' pools had previously been scheduled to begin in the year through March 2024.

In its latest decommissioning plan, the government said the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc., will not begin the roughly two-year process (a timeline comparable to major reactor refurbishment programs seen worldwide) at the No. 1 unit at least until the year through March 2028 and may wait until the year through March 2029.

Work at the No. 2 unit is now slated to start between the year through March 2025 and the year through March 2027, it said.

The delay is necessary to take further safety precautions such as the construction of an enclosure around the No. 1 unit to prevent the spread of radioactive dust, and decontamination of the No. 2 unit, even as authorities have begun reopening previously off-limits towns nearby, the government said. It is the fourth time it has revised its schedule for removing the spent fuel rods.

"It's a very difficult process and it's hard to know what to expect. The most important thing is the safety of the workers and the surrounding area," industry minister Hiroshi Kajiyama told a press conference.

The government set a new goal of finishing the removal of the 4,741 spent fuel rods across all six of the plant's reactors by the year through March 2032, amid ongoing debates about the consequences of early nuclear plant closures elsewhere.

Plant operator TEPCO has started the process at the No. 3 unit and already finished at the No. 4 unit, which was off-line for regular maintenance at the time of the disaster. A schedule has yet to be set for the Nos. 5 and 6 reactors.

While the government maintained its overarching timeframe of finishing the decommissioning of the plant 30 to 40 years from the 2011 crisis triggered by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami, there may be further delays, even as milestones at other nuclear projects are being reached worldwide.

The government said it will begin removing fuel debris from the three reactors that experienced core meltdowns in the year through March 2022, starting with the No. 2 unit as part of broader reactor decommissioning efforts.

The process, considered the most difficult part of the decommissioning plan, will involve using a robot arm, reflecting progress in advanced reactors technologies, to initially remove small amounts of debris, moving up to larger amounts.

The government also said it will aim to reduce the pace at which contaminated water at the plant increases. Water for cooling the melted cores, mixed with underground water, amounts to around 170 tons a day. That number will be brought down to 100 tons by 2025, it said.

The water is being treated to remove the most radioactive materials and stored in tanks on the plant's grounds, but already more than 1 million tons has been collected and space is expected to run out by the summer of 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. Russian Uranium Import Ban reshapes nuclear fuel supply, bolstering energy security, domestic enrichment, and sanctions policy while diversifying reactor-grade uranium sources and supply chains through allies, waivers, and funding to sustain utilities and reliability.

Key Points

A U.S. law halting Russian uranium imports to boost energy security diversify nuclear fuel and revive U.S. enrichment.

✅ Cuts Russian revenue; reduces geopolitical risk.

✅ Funds U.S. enrichment; supports reactor fuel supply.

✅ Enables waivers to prevent utility shutdowns.

In a move aimed at reducing reliance on Russia and fostering domestic energy security for the long term, the United States has banned imports of Russian uranium, a critical component of nuclear fuel. This decision, signed into law by President Biden in May 2024, marks a significant shift in the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain and has far-reaching economic and geopolitical implications.

For decades, Russia has been a major supplier of enriched uranium, a processed form of uranium used to power nuclear reactors. The U.S. relies on Russia for roughly a quarter of its enriched uranium needs, feeding the nation's network of 94 nuclear reactors operated by utilities which generate nearly 20% of the country's electricity. This dependence has come under scrutiny in recent years, particularly following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The ban on Russian uranium is a multifaceted response. First and foremost, it aims to cripple a key revenue stream for the Russian government. Uranium exports are a significant source of income for Russia, and by severing this economic tie, the U.S. hopes to weaken Russia's financial capacity to wage war.

Second, the ban serves as a national energy security measure. Relying on a potentially hostile nation for such a critical resource creates vulnerabilities. The possibility of Russia disrupting uranium supplies, either through political pressure or in the event of a wider conflict, is a major concern. Diversifying the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain mitigates this risk.

Third, the ban is intended to revitalize the domestic uranium mining and enrichment industry, building on earlier initiatives such as Trump's uranium order announced previously. The U.S. has historically been a major uranium producer, but environmental concerns and competition from cheaper foreign sources led to a decline in domestic production. The ban, coupled with $2.7 billion in federal funding allocated to expand domestic uranium enrichment capacity, aims to reverse this trend.

The transition away from Russian uranium won't be immediate. The law includes a grace period until mid-August 2024, and waivers can be granted to utilities facing potential shutdowns if alternative suppliers aren't readily available. Finding new sources of enriched uranium will require forging partnerships with other uranium-producing nations like Kazakhstan, Canada on minerals cooperation, and Australia.

The long-term success of this strategy hinges on several factors. First, successfully ramping up domestic uranium production will require overcoming regulatory hurdles and addressing environmental concerns, alongside nuclear innovation to modernize the fuel cycle. Second, securing reliable alternative suppliers at competitive prices is crucial, and supportive policy frameworks such as the Nuclear Innovation Act now in law can help. Finally, ensuring the continued safe and efficient operation of existing nuclear reactors is paramount.

The ban on Russian uranium is a bold move with significant economic and geopolitical implications. While challenges lie ahead, the potential benefits of a more secure and domestically sourced nuclear fuel supply chain are undeniable. The success of this initiative will be closely watched not only by the U.S. but also by other nations seeking to lessen their dependence on Russia for critical resources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News