Shanghai Electric Power expands into European energy market

Ontario Electricity Policy debates rates, subsidies, renewables, nuclear baseload, and Quebec hydro imports, highlighting grid transmission limits, community consultation, conservation, and the province's energy mix after cancelled wind projects and rising costs to taxpayers.

Key Points

Ontario Electricity Policy guides rates, generation, grid planning, subsidies and imports for reliable, low-cost power.

✅ Focuses on rates, subsidies, and consumer affordability

✅ Balances nuclear baseload, renewables, and Quebec hydro imports

✅ Emphasizes grid transmission, consultation, and conservation

When Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals went down to defeat at the hands of Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservatives, Ontario electricity had a lot to do with it. That was in 2018. Now, two years later, Ford’s government has electricity issues of its own, including a new stance on wind power that continues to draw scrutiny.

Electricity is politically fraught in Ontario. It’s among the most expensive in Canada. And it has been mismanaged at least as far back as nuclear energy cost overruns starting in the 1980s.

From the start Wynne’s government was tainted by the gas plant scandal of her predecessor Dalton McGuinty and then she created her own with the botched roll-out of her green energy plan. And that helped Ford get elected promising to lower electricity prices. But, rates haven’t gone down under Ford while the cost to the government coffers for subsidizing them have soared - now costing $5.6 billion a year.

Meanwhile, Ford’s government has spent at least $230 million to tear up green energy contracts signed by the former Liberal government, including two wind-farm projects that were already mid-construction.

Lessons learned?
In the final part of a three-part series, the six candidates vying to become the next leader of the Ontario Liberals discuss the province's electricity system, including the lessons learned from the prior Liberal government's botched attempts to fix it that led to widespread local opposition to a string of wind power projects, and whether they'd agree to import more hydroelectricity from Quebec.

“We had the right idea but didn’t stick the landing,” said Steven Del Duca, a member of the former Wynne government who lost his Vaughan-area seat in 2018, referring to its green-energy plan. “We need to make sure that we work more collaboratively with local communities to gain the buy-in needed to be successful in this regard.”

“Consultation and listening is key,” agreed Mitzie Hunter, who was education minister under Kathleen Wynne and in 2018 retained her seat in the legislature representing Scarborough-Guildwood. “We must seek input from community members about investments locally,” she said. “Inviting experts in to advise on major policy is also important to make evidence-based decisions."

Michael Coteau, MPP for Don Valley East and the third leadership candidate who was a member of the former government, called for “a new relationship of respect and collaboration with municipalities.”

He said there is an “important balance to be achieved between pursuing province wide objectives for green-energy initiatives and recognizing and reflecting unique local conditions and circumstances.”

Kate Graham, who has worked in municipal public service and has not held a provincial public office, said that experts and local communities are best placed to shape decisions in the sector.

In the final part of a three-part series, Ontario's Liberal leadership contenders discuss electricity, lessons learned from the bungled rollout of previous Liberal green policy, and whether to lean more on Quebec's hydroelectricity.
“What's gotten Ontario in trouble in the past is when Queen's Park politicians are the ones micromanaging the electricity file,” she said.

“Community consultation is vitally important to the long-term success of infrastructure projects,” said Alvin Tedjo, a former policy adviser to Liberal ministers Brad Duguid and Glen Murray.

“Community voices must be heard and listened to when large-scale energy programs are going to be implemented,” agreed Brenda Hollingsworth, a personal injury lawyer making her first foray into politics.

Of the six candidates, only Coteau went beyond reflection to suggest a path forward, saying he would review the distribution of responsibilities between the province and municipalities, with the aim of empowering cities and towns.

Turn back to Quebec?
Ford’s government has also turned away from a deal signed in 2016 to import hydroelectricity from Quebec.

Graham and Hunter both said they would consider increasing such imports. Hunter noted that the deal, which would displace domestic natural gas production, will lower the cost of electricity paid by Ontario ratepayers by a net total of $38 million from 2017 to 2023, according to the province’s fiscal watchdog.

“I am open to working with our neighbouring province,” Hunter said. “This is especially important as we seek to bring electricity to remote northern, on-reserve Indigenous communities.”

Tedjo said he has no issues with importing clean energy as long as it’s at a fair price.

Hollingsworth and Coteau both said they would withhold judgment until they could see the province’s capacity status in 2022.

“In evaluating the case for increasing importation of water power from Quebec, we must realistically assess the limitations of the existing transmission system and the cost and time required to scale up transmission infrastructure, among other factors,” Coteau said.

Del Duca also took a wait-and-see approach. “This will depend on our energy needs and energy mix,” he said. “I want to see our energy needs go down; we need more efficiency and better conservation to make that happen.”

What's the right energy mix?
Nuclear energy currently accounts for about a third of Ontario’s energy-producing capacity, even as Canada explores zero-emissions electricity by 2035 pathways. But it actually supplies about 60 percent of Ontario’s electricity. That is because nuclear reactors are always on, producing so-called baseload power.

Hydroelectricity provides another 25 percent of supply, while oil and natural gas contribute 6 per cent and wind adds 7 percent. Both solar and biofuels account for less than one percent of Ontario’s energy supply. However, a much larger amount of solar is not counted in this tally, as it is used at or near the sites where it is generated, and never enters the transmission system.

Asked for their views on how large a role various sources of power should play in Ontario’s electricity mix in the future, the candidates largely backed the idea of renewable energy, but offered little specifics.

Graham repeated her statement that experts and communities should drive that conversation. Tedjo said all non-polluting technologies should play a role in Ontario’s energy mix, as provinces like Alberta demonstrate parallel growth in green energy and fossil fuels. Coteau said we need a mix of renewable-energy sources, without offering specifics.

“We also need to pursue carbon capture and sequestration, working in particular with our farming communities,” he added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

25% Tariff on Canadian Imports threatens New York energy markets, disrupting hydroelectric power and natural gas supply chains, raising electricity prices, increasing gas costs, and intensifying trade tensions, policy uncertainty, and cross-border logistics risks.

Key Points

A U.S. policy imposing 25% duties on Canadian goods, risking higher New York electricity and natural gas costs.

✅ Hydroelectric and gas imports face costlier cross-border flows

✅ Higher utility bills for NY households and businesses

✅ Supply chain volatility and policy uncertainty increase

President Donald Trump announced the imposition of a 25% tariff on all imports from Canada, citing concerns over drug trafficking and illegal immigration. This decision has raised significant concerns among experts and residents in New York, who warn that the tariff could lead to increased electricity and gas prices in the state.

Impact on New York's Energy Sector

New York relies heavily on energy imports from Canada, particularly electricity and natural gas. Canada is a major supplier of hydroelectric power to the northeastern United States, including New York, with its electricity exports at risk amid trade tensions. The imposition of a 25% tariff on Canadian goods could disrupt this supply chain, leading to higher energy costs for consumers and businesses in New York. Justin Wilcox, an energy analyst, stated, "If the tariff is implemented, it could lead to increased costs for electricity and gas, affecting both consumers and businesses."

Potential Economic Consequences

The increased energy costs could have broader economic implications for New York, and some experts advise against cutting Quebec's exports to avoid exacerbating market volatility. Higher electricity and gas prices may lead to increased operational costs for businesses, potentially resulting in higher prices for goods and services, while tariff threats have boosted support for Canadian energy projects that could reshape regional supply. This could exacerbate the cost-of-living challenges faced by residents and strain the state's economy.

Political and Diplomatic Reactions

The tariff has also sparked political and diplomatic reactions, including threats to cut U.S. electricity exports from Ontario that raised tensions. New York Governor Kathy Hochul expressed concern over the potential economic impact, stating, "We are closely monitoring the situation and are prepared to take necessary actions to protect New York's economy." Additionally, Canadian officials have expressed their disapproval of the tariff, and Ontario Premier Doug Ford's Washington meeting underscored ongoing discussions, emphasizing the importance of the trade relationship between the two countries.

Historical Context

This development is part of a broader pattern of trade tensions between the United States and its neighbors. In 2018, the U.S. imposed tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, leading to retaliatory measures from Canada. The current situation underscores the ongoing challenges in international trade relations, where a recent tariff threat delayed Quebec's green energy bill and highlighted the potential domestic impacts of such policies.

The imposition of a 25% tariff on Canadian imports by President Trump has raised significant concerns in New York regarding potential increases in electricity and gas prices. Experts warn that this could lead to higher costs for consumers and businesses, with broader economic implications for the state. As the situation develops, it will be crucial to monitor the responses from both state and federal officials, as well as how Canadians support tariffs on energy and minerals may influence policy, and the potential for diplomatic negotiations to address these trade tensions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

COVID-19 Impact on Global Oil Demand 2020 signals an IEA forecast of declining consumption as travel restrictions curb transport fuels, disrupt energy markets, and shift OPEC and non-OPEC supply dynamics amid economic slowdown.

Key Points

IEA sees first demand drop since 2009 as COVID-19 curbs travel, weakening transport fuels and unsettling energy markets.

✅ IEA base case: 2020 demand at 99.9 mb/d, down 90 kb/d from 2019.

✅ Travel restrictions hit transport fuels; China drives the decline.

✅ Scenarios: low -730 kb/d; high +480 kb/d in 2020.

Global oil demand is expected to decline in 2020 as the impact of the new coronavirus (COVID-19) spreads around the world, constricting travel and broader economic activity, according to the International Energy Agency’s latest oil market forecast.

The situation remains fluid, creating an extraordinary degree of uncertainty over what the full global impact of the virus will be. In the IEA’s central base case, even as global CO2 emissions flatlined in 2019 according to the IEA, demand this year drops for the first time since 2009 because of the deep contraction in oil consumption in China, and major disruptions to global travel and trade.

“The coronavirus crisis is affecting a wide range of energy markets – including coal-fired electricity generation, gas and renewables – but its impact on oil markets is particularly severe because it is stopping people and goods from moving around, dealing a heavy blow to demand for transport fuels,” said Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA’s Executive Director. “This is especially true in China, the largest energy consumer in the world, which accounted for more than 80% of global oil demand growth last year. While the repercussions of the virus are spreading to other parts of the world, what happens in China will have major implications for global energy and oil markets.”

The IEA now sees global oil demand at 99.9 million barrels a day in 2020, down around 90,000 barrels a day from 2019. This is a sharp downgrade from the IEA’s forecast in February, which predicted global oil demand would grow by 825,000 barrels a day in 2020.

The short-term outlook for the oil market will ultimately depend on how quickly governments move to contain the coronavirus outbreak, how successful their efforts are, and what lingering impact the global health crisis has on economic activity.

To account for the extreme uncertainty facing energy markets, the IEA has developed two other scenarios for how global oil demand could evolve this year. In a more pessimistic low case, global measures fail to contain the virus, and global demand falls by 730,000 barrels a day in 2020. In a more optimistic high case, the virus is contained quickly around the world, and global demand grows by 480,000 barrels a day.

“We are following the situation extremely closely and will provide regular updates to our forecasts as the picture becomes clearer,” Dr Birol said. “The impact of the coronavirus on oil markets may be temporary. But the longer-term challenges facing the world’s suppliers are not going to go away, especially those heavily dependent on oil and gas revenues. As the IEA has repeatedly said, these producer countries need more dynamic and diversified economies in order to navigate the multiple uncertainties that we see today.”

The IEA also published its medium-term outlook examining the key issues in global demand, supply, refining and trade to 2025, as well as the trajectory of the global energy transition now shaping markets. Following a contraction in 2020 and an expected sharp rebound in 2021, yearly growth in global oil demand is set to slow as consumption of transport fuels grows more slowly and as national net-zero pathways, with Canada needing more electricity to reach net-zero influencing power demand, according to the report. Between 2019 and 2025, global oil demand is expected to grow at an average annual rate of just below 1 million barrels a day. Over the period as whole, demand rises by a total of 5.7 million barrels a day, with China and India accounting for about half of the growth.

At the same time, the world’s oil production capacity is expected to rise by 5.9 million barrels a day, with more than three-quarters of it coming from non-OPEC producers, the report forecasts. But production growth in the United States and other non-OPEC countries is set to lose momentum after 2022, amid shifts in Wall Street's energy strategy linked to policy signals, allowing OPEC producers from the Middle East to turn the taps back up to help keep the global oil market in balance.

The medium-term market report, Oil 2020, also considers the impact of clean energy transitions on oil market trends. Demand growth for gasoline and diesel between 2019 and 2025 is forecast to weaken as countries around the world implement policies to improve efficiency and cut carbon dioxide emissions – and as solar power becomes the cheapest electricity in many markets and electric vehicles increase in popularity. The impact of energy transitions on oil supply remains unclear, with many companies prioritising short-cycle projects for the coming years.

“The coronavirus crisis is adding to the uncertainties the global oil industry faces as it contemplates new investments and business strategies,” Dr Birol said. “The pressures on companies are changing, with European oil majors turning electric to diversify. They need to show that they can deliver not just the energy that economies rely on, but also the emissions reductions that the world needs to help tackle our climate challenge.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

EV Decarbonization Strategy weighs life-cycle emissions and climate targets, highlighting mode shift to public transit, cycling, and walking, grid decarbonization, renewable energy, and charging infrastructure to cut greenhouse gases while reducing private car dependence.

Key Points

A plan to cut transport emissions by pairing EV adoption with mode shift, clean power, and less private car use.

✅ Prioritize mode shift: transit, cycling, and walking.

✅ Electrify remaining vehicles with clean, renewable power.

✅ Expand charging, improve batteries, and manage critical minerals.

California recently announced that it plans to ban the sales of gas-powered vehicles by 2035, a move similar to a 2035 electric vehicle mandate seen elsewhere, Ontario has invested $500 million in the production of electric vehicles (EVs) and Tesla is quickly becoming the world's highest-valued car company.

It almost seems like owning an electric vehicle is a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, but it isn't, as a U of T study explains today. What we should also be focused on is whether anyone should use a private vehicle at all.
 
As a researcher in sustainable mobility, I know this answer is unsatisfying. But this is where my latest research has led.

Battery EVs, such as the Tesla Model 3 - the best selling EV in Canada in 2020 - have no tailpipe emissions. But they do have higher production and manufacturing emissions than conventional vehicles, and often run on electricity that comes from fossil fuels.

Almost 18 per cent of the electricity generated in Canada came from fossil fuels in 2019, and even as Canada's EV goals grow more ambitious today, the grid mix varies from zero in Quebec to 90 per cent in Alberta.
 
Researchers like me compare the greenhouse gas emissions of an alternative vehicle, such as an EV, with those of a conventional vehicle over a vehicle lifetime, an exercise known as a life-cycle assessment. For example, a Tesla Model 3 compared with a Toyota Corolla can provide up to 75 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases emitted per kilometre travelled in Quebec, but no reductions in Alberta.

Hundreds of millions of new cars

To avoid extreme and irreversible impacts on ecosystems, communities and the overall global economy, we must keep the increase in global average temperatures to less than 2 C - and ideally 1.5 C - above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100.

We can translate these climate change targets into actionable plans. First, we estimate greenhouse gas emissions budgets using energy and climate models for each sector of the economy and for each country. Then we simulate future emissions, taking alternative technologies into account, as well as future potential economic and societal developments.

I looked at the U.S. passenger vehicle fleet, which adds up to about 260 million vehicles, while noting the potential for Canada-U.S. collaboration in this transition, to answer a simple question: Could the greenhouse gas emissions from the sector be brought in line with climate targets by replacing gasoline-powered vehicles with EVs?

The results were shocking. Assuming no changes to travel behaviours and a decarbonization of 80 per cent of electricity, meeting a 2 C target could require up to 300 million EVs, or 90 per cent of the projected U.S. fleet, by 2050. That would require all new purchased vehicles to be electric from 2035 onwards.

To put that into perspective, there are currently 880,000 EVs in the U.S., or 0.3 per cent of the fleet. Even the most optimistic projections, despite hype about an electric-car revolution gaining steam, from the International Energy Agency suggest that the U.S. fleet will only be at about 50 per cent electrified by 2050.

Massive and rapid electrification

Still, 90 per cent is theoretically possible, isn't it? Probably, but is it desirable?

In order to hit that target, we'd need to very rapidly overcome all the challenges associated with EV adoption, such as range anxiety, the higher purchase cost and availability of charging infrastructure.
 
A rapid pace of electrification would severely challenge the electricity infrastructure and the supply chain of many critical materials for the batteries, such as lithium, manganese and cobalt. It would require vast capacity of renewable energy sources and transmission lines, widespread charging infrastructure, a co-ordination between two historically distinct sectors (electricity and transportation systems) and rapid innovations in electric battery technologies. I am not saying it's impossible, but I believe it's unlikely.

Read more: There aren't enough batteries to electrify all cars - focus on trucks and buses instead

So what? Shall we give up, accept our collective fate and stop our efforts at electrification?

On the contrary, I think we should re-examine our priorities and dare to ask an even more critical question: Do we need that many vehicles on the road?

Buses, trains and bikes

Simply put, there are three ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger transport: avoid the need to travel, shift the transportation modes or improve the technologies. EVs only tackle one side of the problem, the technological one.

And while EVs do decrease emissions compared with conventional vehicles, we should be comparing them to buses, including leading electric bus fleets in North America, trains and bikes. When we do, their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions disappears because of their life cycle emissions and the limited number of people they carry at one time.

If we truly want to solve our climate problems, we need to deploy EVs along with other measures, such as public transit and active mobility. This fact is critical, especially given the recent decreases in public transit ridership in the U.S., mostly due to increasing vehicle ownership, low gasoline prices and the advent of ride-hailing (Uber, Lyft)

Governments need to massively invest in public transit, cycling and walking infrastructure to make them larger, safer and more reliable, rather than expanding EV subsidies alone. And we need to reassess our transportation needs and priorities.

The road to decarbonization is long and winding. But if we are willing to get out of our cars and take a shortcut through the forest, we might get there a lot faster.

Author: Alexandre Milovanoff - Postdoctoral Researcher, Environmental Engineering, University of Toronto 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Spring Storm Grid Risks highlight tornado outbreaks, flooding, power outages, and transmission disruptions, with NOAA flood outlooks, coal and barge delays, vulnerable nuclear sites, and distribution line damage demanding resilience, reliability, and emergency preparedness.

Key Points

Spring Storm Grid Risks show how tornadoes and floods disrupt power systems, fuel transport, and plants guide resilience.

✅ Tornado outbreaks and derechos damage distribution and transmission

✅ Flooding drives outages via treefall, substation and plant inundation

✅ Fuel logistics disrupted: rail coal, river barges, road access

The storm and tornado outbreak that recently barreled through the US Midwest, South and Mid-Atlantic was a devastating reminder of how much danger spring can deliver, despite it being the “milder” season compared to summer and winter.  

Danger season is approaching, and the country is starting to see the impacts. 

The event killed at least 32 people across seven states. The National Weather Service is still tallying up the number of confirmed tornadoes, which has already passed 100. Communities coping with tragedy are assessing the damage, which so far includes at least 72 destroyed homes in one Tennessee county alone, and dozens more homes elsewhere. 

On Saturday, April 1–the day after the storm struck–there were 1.1 million US utility customers without power, even as EIA reported a January power generation surge earlier in the year. On Monday morning, April 3, there were still more than 80,000 customers in the dark, according to PowerOutage.us. The storm system brought disruptions to both distribution grids–those networks of local power lines you generally see running overhead to buildings–as well as the larger transmission grid in the Midwest, which is far less common than distribution-level issues. 

While we don’t yet have a lot of granular details about this latest storm’s grid impacts, recent shifts in demand like New York City's pandemic power patterns show how operating conditions evolve, and it’s worth going through what else the country might be in for this spring, as well as in future springs. Moreover, there are steps policymakers can take to prepare for these spring weather phenomena and bolster the reliability and resilience of the US power system. 

Heightened flood risk 
The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said in a recent outlook that about 44 percent of the United States is at risk of floods this spring, equating to about 146 million people. This includes most of the eastern half of the country, the federal agency said. 

The agency also sees “major” flood risk potential in some parts of the Upper Mississippi River Basin, and relatively higher risk in the Sierra Nevada region, due in part to a historic snowpack in California.  

Multiple components of the power system can be affected by spring floods. 

Power lines – Floods can saturate soil and make trees more likely to uproot and fall onto power lines. This has been contributing to power outages during California’s recent heavy storms–called atmospheric rivers–that started over the winter. In other regions, soil moisture has even been used as a predictor of where power outages will occur due to hurricanes, so that utility companies are better prepared to send line repair crews to the right areas. Hurricanes are primarily a summer and fall phenomenon, and summer also brings grid stress from air conditioning demand in many states, so for now, during spring, they are less of a concern.  

Fuel transport – Spring floods can hinder the transportation of fuels like coal. While it is a heavily polluting fossil fuel that is set to continue declining as a fuel source for US electricity generation, with the EIA summer outlook for wind and solar pointing to further shifts, coal still accounted for roughly 20 percent of the country’s generation in 2022.   

About 70 percent of US coal is transported at least part of the way by trains. The rail infrastructure to transport coal from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming–the country’s primary coal source–was proven to be vulnerable to extreme floods in the spring of 2011, and even more extreme floods in the spring of 2019. The 2019 floods’ disruptions of coal shipments to power plants via rail persisted for months and into the summertime, also affecting river shipments of coal by barge. In June 2019, hundreds of barges were stalled in the Mississippi River, through which millions of tons of the fossil fuel are normally transported. 

Power plants – Power plants themselves can also be at risk of flooding, since most of them are sited near a source of water that is used to create steam to spin the plants’ turbines, and conversely, low water levels can constrain hydropower as seen in Western Canada hydropower drought during recent reservoir shortfalls. Most US fossil fuel generating capacity from sources like methane gas, which recently set natural gas power records across the grid, and coal utilizes steam to generate electricity. 

However, much of the attention paid to the flood risk of power plant sites has centered on nuclear plants, a key source of low-carbon electricity discussed in IAEA low-carbon electricity lessons that also require a water source for the creation of steam, as well as for keeping the plant cool in an emergency. To name a notable flood example here in the United States–both visually and substantively–in 2011, the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant in Nebraska was completely surrounded by water due to late-spring flooding along the Missouri River. This sparked a lot of concerns because it was just a few months after the March 2011 meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan. The public was thankfully not harmed by the Nebraska incident, but this was unfortunately not an isolated incident in terms of flood risks posed to the US nuclear power fleet. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Three Mile Island Nuclear Debate spotlights subsidies, carbon pricing, wholesale power markets, grid reliability, and zero-emissions goals as Pennsylvania weighs keeping Exelon's reactor open amid natural gas competition and flat electricity demand.

Key Points

Debate over subsidies, carbon pricing, and grid reliability shaping Three Mile Island's zero-emissions future.

✅ Zero emissions credits vs market integrity

✅ Carbon pricing to value clean baseload power

✅ Closure risks jobs, tax revenue, and reliability

Three Mile Island is at the center of a new conversation about the future of nuclear energy in the United States nearly 40 years after a partial meltdown at the Central Pennsylvania plant sparked a national debate about the safety of nuclear power.

The site is slated to close in just two years, a closure plan Exelon has signaled, unless Pennsylvania or a regional power transmission operator delivers some form of financial relief, says Exelon, the Chicago-based power company that operates the plant.

That has drawn the Keystone State into a growing debate: whether to let struggling nuclear plants shut down if they cannot compete in the regional wholesale markets where energy is bought and sold, or adopt measures to keep them in the business of generating power without greenhouse gas emissions.

""The old compromise — that in order to have a reliable, affordable electric system you had to deal with a significant amount of air pollution — is a compromise our new customers today don't want to hear about.""
-Joseph Dominguez, Exelon executive vice president
Nuclear power plants produce about two-thirds of the country's zero-emissions electricity, a role many view as essential to net-zero emissions goals for the grid.

The debate is playing out as some regions consider putting a price on planet-warming carbon emissions produced by some power generators, which would raise their costs and make nuclear plants like Three Mile Island more viable, and developments such as Europe's nuclear losses highlight broader energy security concerns.

States that allow nuclear facilities to close need to think carefully because once a reactor is powered down, there's no turning back, said Jake Smeltz, chief of staff for Pennsylvania State Sen. Ryan Aument, who chairs the state's Nuclear Energy Caucus.

"If we wave goodbye to a nuclear station, it's a permanent goodbye because we don't mothball them. We decommission them," he told CNBC.

Three Mile Island's closure would eliminate more than 800 megawatts of electricity output. That's roughly 10 percent of Pennsylvania's zero-emissions energy generation, by Exelon's calculation. Replacing that with fossil fuel-fired power would be like putting roughly 10 million cars on the road, it estimates.

A closure would also shed about 650 well-paying jobs, putting the just transition challenge in focus for local workers and communities, tied to about $60 million in wages per year. Dauphin County and Londonderry Township, a rural area on the Susquehanna River where the plant is based, stand to lose $1 million in annual tax revenue that funds schools and municipalities. The 1,000 to 1,500 workers who pack local hotels, stores and restaurants every two years for plant maintenance would stop visiting.

Pennsylvanians and lawmakers must now decide whether these considerations warrant throwing Exelon a lifeline. It's a tough sell in the nation's second-largest natural gas-producing state, which already generates more energy than it uses. And time is running out to reach a short-term solution.

"What's meaningful to us is something where we could see the results before we turn in the keys, and we turn in the keys the third quarter of '19," said Joseph Dominguez, Exelon's executive vice president for governmental and regulatory affairs and public policy.

The end of the nuclear age?

The problem for Three Mile Island is the same one facing many of the nation's 60 nuclear plants: They are too expensive to operate.

Financial pressure on these facilities is mounting as power demand remains stagnant due to improved energy efficiency, prices remain low for natural gas-fired generation and costs continue to fall for wind and solar power.

Three Mile Island is something of a special case: The 1979 incident left only one of its two reactors operational, but it still employs about as many people as a plant with two reactors, making it less efficient. In the last three regional auctions, when power generators lock in buyers for their future energy generation, no one bought power from Three Mile Island.

But even dual-reactor plants are facing existential threats. FirstEnergy Corp's Beaver Valley will sell or close its nuclear plant near the Pennsylvania-Ohio border next year as it exits the competitive power-generation business, and facilities like Ohio's Davis-Besse illustrate what's at stake for the region.

Five nuclear power plants have shuttered across the country since 2013. Another six have plans to shut down, and four of those would close well ahead of schedule. An analysis by energy research firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance found that more than half the nation's nuclear plants are facing some form of financial stress.

Today's regional energy markets, engineered to produce energy at the lowest cost to consumers, do not take into account that nuclear power generates so much zero-emission electricity. But Dominguez, the Exelon vice president, said that's out of step with a world increasingly concerned about climate change.

"What we see is increasingly our customers are interested in getting electricity from zero air pollution sources," Dominguez said. "The old compromise — that in order to have a reliable, affordable electric system you had to deal with a significant amount of air pollution — is a compromise our new customers today don't want to hear about."

Strange bedfellows

Faced with the prospect of nuclear plant closures, Chicago and New York have both allowed nuclear reactors to qualify for subsidies called zero emissions credits. Exelon lobbied for the credits, which will benefit some of its nuclear plants in those states.

Even though the plants produce nuclear waste, some environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council supported these plans. That's because they were part of broader packages that promote wind and solar power, and the credits for nuclear are not open-ended. They essentially provide a bridge that keeps zero-emissions power from nuclear reactors on the grid as renewable energy becomes more viable.

Lawmakers in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Connecticut are currently exploring similar options. Jake Smeltz, chief of staff to state Sen. Aument, said legislation could surface in Pennsylvania as soon as this fall. The challenge is to get people to consider the attributes of the sources of their electricity beyond just cost, according to Smeltz.

"Are the plants worth essentially saving? That's a social choice. Do they provide us with something that has benefits beyond the electrons they make? That's the debate that's been happening in other states, and those states say yes," he said.

Subsidies face opposition from anti-nuclear energy groups like Three Mile Island Alert, as well as natural gas trade groups and power producers who compete against Exelon by operating coal and natural gas plants.

"Where we disagree is to have an out-of-market subsidy for one specific company, for a technology that is now proven and mature in our view, at the expense of consumers and the integrity of competitive markets," NRG Energy Mauricio Gutierrez told analysts during a conference call this month.

Smeltz notes that power producers like NRG would fill in the void left by nuclear plants as they continue to shut down.

"The question that I think folks need to answer is are these programs a bailout or is the opposition to the program a payout? Because at the end of the day someone is going to make money. The question is who and how much?" Smeltz said.

Changing the market

Another critic is PJM Interconnection, the regional transmission organization that operates the grid for 13 states, including Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.

The subsidies distort price formation and inject uncertainty into the markets, says Stu Bresler, senior vice president in charge of operations and markets at PJM.

The danger PJM sees is that each new subsidy creates a precedent for government intervention. The uncertainty makes it harder for investors to determine what sort of power generation is a sound investment in the region, Bresler explained. Those investors could simply decide to put their capital to work in other energy markets where the regulatory outlook is more stable, ultimately leading to underinvestment in places where government intervenes, he added.

Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, Londonderry Township, Pennsylvania
PJM believes longer-term, regional approaches are more appropriate. It has produced research that outlines how coal plants and nuclear energy, which provide the type of stable energy that is still necessary for reliable power supply, could play a larger role in setting prices. It is also preparing to release a report on how to put a price on carbon emissions in all or parts of the regional grid.

"If carbon emissions are the concern and that is the public policy issue with which policymakers are concerned, the simple be-all answer from a market perspective is putting a price on carbon," Bresler said.

Three Mile Island could be viable if natural gas prices rose from below $3 per million British thermal units to about $5 per mmBtu and if a "reasonable" price were applied to carbon, according to Exelon's Dominguez. He is encouraged by the fact that conversations around new pricing models and carbon pricing are gaining traction.

"The great part about this is everybody understands we have a major problem. We're losing some of the lowest-cost, cleanest and most reliable resources in America," Dominguez said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News