Testing of schools conducted near hydro corridor

B.C. EV Electrification 2055 projects grid capacity needs doubling to 37 GW, driven by electric vehicles, renewable energy expansion, wind and solar generation, limited natural gas, and policy mandates for zero-emission transportation.

Key Points

A projection that electrifying all B.C. road transport by 2055 would more than double grid demand to 37 GW.

✅ Site C adds 1.1 GW; rest from wind, solar, limited natural gas.

✅ Electricity price per kWh rises 9%, but fuel savings offset.

✅ Significant GHG cuts with 93% renewable grid under Clean Energy Act.

Researchers at the University of Victoria say that if B.C. were to shift to electric power for all road vehicles by 2055, the province would require more than double the electricity now being generated.

The findings are included in a study to be published in the November issue of the Applied Energy journal.

According to co-author and UVic professor Curran Crawford, the team at the university's Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions took B.C.'s 2015 electrical capacity of 15.6 gigawatts as a baseline, and added projected demands from population and economic growth, then added the increase that shifting to electric vehicles would require, while acknowledging power supply challenges that could arise.

They calculated the demand in 2055 would amount to 37 gigawatts, more than double 15.6 gigawatts used in 2015 as a baseline, and utilities warn of a potential EV charging bottleneck if demand ramps up faster than infrastructure.

"We wanted to understand what the electricity requirements are if you want to do that," he said. "It's possible — it would take some policy direction."

B.C. announces $4M in rebates for home and work EV charging stations across the province
The team took the planned Site C dam project into account, but that would only add 1.1 gigawatts of power. So assuming no other hydroelectric dams are planned, the remainder would likely have to come from wind and solar projects and some natural gas.

"Geothermal and biomass were also in the model," said Crawford, adding that they are more expensive electricity sources. "The model we were using, essentially, we're looking for the cheapest options."
Wind turbines on the Tantramar Marsh between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick tower over the Trans-Canada Highway. If British Columbia were to shift to 100 per cent electric-powered ground transportation by 2055, the province would have to significantly increase its wind and solar power generation. (Eric Woolliscroft/CBC)
The electricity bill, per kilowatt hour, would increase by nine per cent, according to the team's research, but Crawford said getting rid of the gasoline and diesel now used to fuel vehicles could amount to an overall cost saving, especially when combined with zero-emission vehicle incentives available to consumers.

The province introduced a law this year requiring that all new light-duty vehicles sold in B.C. be zero emission by 2040, while the federal 2035 EV mandate adds another policy signal, so the researchers figured 2055 was a reasonable date to imagine all vehicles on the road to be electric.

Crawford said hydrogen-powered vehicles weren't considered in the study, as the model used was already complicated enough, but hydrogen fuel would actually require more electricity for the electrolysis, when compared to energy stored in batteries.

Electric vehicles are approaching a tipping point as faster charging becomes more available — here's why
The study also found that shifting to all-electric ground transportation in B.C. would also mean a significant decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, assuming the Clean Energy Act remains in place, which mandates that 93 per cent of grid electricity must come from renewable resources, whereas nationally, about 18 per cent of electricity still comes from fossil fuels, according to 2019 data. 

"Doing the electrification makes some sense — If you're thinking of spending some money to reduce carbon emissions, this is a pretty cost effective way of doing that," said Crawford.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

CAISO Clean Energy Transition outlines California's path to 100% carbon-free power by 2045, scaling renewables, battery storage, and offshore wind while safeguarding grid reliability, managing natural gas, and leveraging Western markets like EDAM.

Key Points

CAISO Clean Energy Transition is the plan to reach 100% carbon-free power by 2045 while maintaining grid reliability.

✅ Target: add 7 GW/year to reach 120 GW capacity by 2045

✅ Battery storage up 30x; smooths intermittent solar and wind

✅ EDAM and WEIM enhance imports, savings, and reliability

Mark Rothleder, Chief Operating Officer and Senior Vice President at the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), which manages roughly 80% of California’s electric grid, has expressed cautious optimism about meeting the state's ambitious clean energy targets while keeping the lights on across the grid. However, he acknowledges that this journey will not be without its challenges.

California aims to transition its power system to 100% carbon-free sources by 2045, ensuring a reliable electricity supply at reasonable costs for consumers. Rothleder, aware of the task's enormity, likens it to a complex car repair performed while the vehicle is in motion.

Recent achievements have demonstrated California's ability to temporarily sustain its grid using clean energy sources. According to Rothleder, the real challenge lies in maintaining this performance round the clock, every day of the year.

Adding thousands of megawatts of renewable energy into California’s existing 50-gigawatt system, which needs to expand to 120 gigawatts to meet the 2045 goal, poses a significant challenge, though recent grid upgrade funding offers some support for needed infrastructure. CAISO estimates that an addition of 7 gigawatts of clean power per year for the next two decades is necessary, all while ensuring uninterrupted power delivery.

While natural gas currently constitutes California's largest single source of power, Rothleder notes the need to gradually decrease reliance on it, even as it remains an operational necessity in the transition phase.

In 2023, CAISO added 5,660 megawatts of new power to the grid, with plans to integrate over 1,100 additional megawatts in the next six to eight months of 2024. Battery storage, crucial for mitigating the intermittent nature of wind and solar power, has seen substantial growth as California turns to batteries for grid support, increasing 30-fold in three years.

Rothleder emphasizes that electricity reliability is paramount, as consumers always expect power availability. He also highlights the potential of offshore wind projects to significantly contribute to California's power mix by 2045.

The offshore wind industry faces financial and supply chain challenges despite these plans. CAISO’s 20-year outlook indicates a significant increase in utility-scale solar, requiring extensive land use and wider deployment of advanced inverters for grid stability.

Addressing affordability is vital, especially as California residents face increasing utility bills. Rothleder suggests a broader energy cost perspective, encompassing utility and transportation expenses.

Despite smooth grid operations in 2023, challenges in previous years, including extreme weather-induced power outages driven by climate change, underscore the need for a robust, adaptable grid. California imports about a quarter of its power from neighbouring states and participates in the Western Energy Imbalance Market, which has yielded significant savings.

CAISO is also working on establishing an extended day-ahead electricity market (EDAM) to enhance the current energy market's success, building on insights from a Western grid integration report that supports expanded coordination.

Rothleder believes that a thoughtfully designed, diverse power system can offer greater reliability and resilience in the long run. A future grid reliant on multiple, smaller power sources such as microgrids could better absorb potential losses, ensuring a more reliable electricity supply for California.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Vogtle Unit 3 Initial Criticality marks the startup of a new U.S. nuclear reactor, initiating fission to produce heat, steam, and electricity, supporting clean energy goals, grid reliability, and carbon-free baseload power.

Key Points

Vogtle Unit 3 Initial Criticality is the first fission startup, launching power generation at a new U.S. reactor.

✅ First new U.S. reactor to reach criticality since 2016

✅ Generates carbon-free baseload power for the grid

✅ Faced cost overruns and delays during construction

For the first time in almost seven years, a new nuclear reactor has started up in the United States.

On Monday, Georgia Power announced that the Vogtle nuclear reactor Unit 3 has started a nuclear reaction inside the reactor as part of the first new reactors in decades now taking shape at the plant.

Technically, this is called “initial criticality.” It’s when the nuclear fission process starts splitting atoms and generating heat, Georgia Power said in a written announcement.

The heat generated in the nuclear reactor causes water to boil. The resulting steam spins a turbine that’s connected to a generator that creates electricity.

Vogtle’s Unit 3 reactor will be fully in service in May or June, Georgia Power said.

The last time a nuclear reactor reached the same milestone was almost seven years ago in May 2016 when the Tennessee Valley Authority started splitting atoms at the Watts Bar Unit 2 reactor in Tennessee, Scott Burnell, a spokesperson for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told CNBC.

“This is a truly exciting time as we prepare to bring online a new nuclear unit that will serve our state with clean and emission-free energy for the next 60 to 80 years,” Chris Womack, CEO of Georgia Power, said in a written statement. 

Including the newly turned-on Vogtle Unit 3 reactor, there are currently 93 nuclear reactors operating in the United States and, collectively, they generate 20% of the electricity in the country, although a South Carolina plant leak recently showed how outages can sideline a unit for weeks.

Nuclear reactors, which help combat global warming and support net-zero emissions goals, generate about half of the clean, carbon-free electricity generated in the U.S.

Most of the nuclear power reactors in the United States were constructed between 1970 and 1990, but construction slowed significantly after the accident at Three Mile Island near Middletown, Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979, even as interest in next-gen nuclear power has grown in recent years. From 1979 through 1988, 67 nuclear reactor construction projects were canceled, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

However, because nuclear energy is generated without releasing carbon dioxide emissions, which cause global warming, the increased sense of urgency in responding to climate change has given nuclear energy a chance at a renaissance as atomic energy heats up again globally.

The cost associated with building nuclear reactors is a major barrier to a potential resurgence in nuclear energy, however, even as nuclear generation costs have fallen to a ten-year low. And the new builds at Vogtle have become an epitome of that charge: The construction of the two Vogtle reactors has been plagued by cost overruns and delays.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

US utilities COVID-19 resilience shows electric utilities maintaining demand stability, reaffirming earnings guidance, and accessing the bond market for low-cost financing, as Dominion, NextEra, and Con Edison manage recession risks.

Key Points

It is the sector's capacity to sustain demand, financing access, and guidance despite pandemic recession pressures.

✅ Bond market access locks in low-cost, long-term debt

✅ Stable residential load offsets industrial weakness

✅ Guidance largely reaffirmed by major utilities

Dominion Energy (D) expects "incremental residential load" gains, consistent with COVID-19 electricity demand patterns, as a result of COVID-19 fallout. Southern Company CEO Tom Fanning says his company is "nowhere near" a need to review earnings guidance because of a potential recession, in a region where efficiency and demand response can help level electricity demand for years.

Sempra Energy (SRE) has reaffirmed earnings per share guidance for 2020 and 2021, as well timing for the sale of assets in Chile and Peru, and peers such as Duke Energy's renewables plan have reaffirmed capital investments to deliver cleaner energy and economic growth. And Xcel Energy (XEL) says it still "hasn’t seen material impact on its business."

Several electric utilities have demonstrated ability to tap the bond market, in line with utility sector trends in recent years, to lock in low-cost financing, as America moves toward broader electrification, despite ongoing turmoil. Their ranks include Dominion Energy, renewable energy leader NextEra Energy (NEE) and Consolidated Edison (ED), which last week sold $1 billion of 30-year bonds at a coupon rate of just 3.95 percent.

It’s still early days for US COVID-19 fallout. And most electric companies have yet to issue guidance. That’s understandable, since so much is still unknown about the virus and the damage it will ultimately do to human health and the global economy. But so far, the US power industry is showing typical resilience in tough times, as it coordinates closely with federal partners to maintain reliability.

Will it last? We won’t know for certain until there’s a lot more data. NextEra is usually first to report its Q1 earnings reports and detailed guidance. But that’s not expected until April 23. And companies may delay financials further, should the virus and efforts to control it impede collection and analysis of data, and as they address electricity shut-off risks affecting customers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Electricity Reserve Mandate requires 3.3 GW of new capacity to bolster grid reliability amid solar power volatility, peak demand, and wildfire-driven blackouts, as CPUC directs PG&E, Edison, and Sempra to procure resource adequacy.

Key Points

A CPUC order for utilities to add 3.3 GW of reserves, safeguarding grid reliability during variable renewables and peaks

✅ 3.3 GW procurement to meet resource adequacy targets

✅ Focus on grid reliability during peak evening demand

✅ Prioritizes renewables, storage; limits new fossil builds

As if California doesn’t have enough problems with its electric service, now state regulators warn the state may be short on power supplies by 2021 if utilities don’t start lining up new resources now.

In the hopes of heading off a shortfall as America goes electric, the California Public Utilities Commission has ordered the state’s electricity providers to secure 3.3 additional gigawatts of reserve supplies. That’s enough to power roughly 2.5 million homes. Half of it must be in place by 2021 and the rest by August 2023.

The move comes as California is already struggling to accommodate increasingly large amounts of solar power that regularly send electricity prices plunging below zero and force other generators offline so the region’s grid doesn’t overload. The state is also still reeling from a series of deliberate mass blackouts that utilities imposed last month to keep their power lines from sparking wildfires amid strong winds. And its largest power company, PG&E Corp., went bankrupt in January.

Now as natural gas-fired power plants retire under the state’s climate policies, officials are warning the state could run short on electricity on hot evenings, when solar production fades and commuters get home and crank up their air conditioners. “We have fewer resources that can be quickly turned on that can meet those peaks,” utilities commission member Liane Randolph said Thursday before the panel approved the order to beef up reserves.

The 3.3 gigawatts that utilities must line up is in addition to a state rule requiring them to sign contracts for 15% more electricity than they expect to need. Some critics question the need for added supplies, particularly after the state went on a plant-building boom in the 2000s.

But California’s grid managers say the risk of a shortfall is real and could be as high as 4.7 gigawatts, especially during heat waves that test the grid again. Mark Rothleder, with the California Independent System Operator, said the 15% cushion is a holdover from the days before big solar and wind farms made the grid more volatile. Now it may need to be increased, he said.

“We’re not in that world anymore,” said Rothleder, the operator’s vice president of state regulatory affairs. “The complexity of the system and the resources we have now are much different.”

The state’s three major utilities, PG&E, Edison International and Sempra Energy, will be largely responsible for securing new supplies. The commission banned fossil fuels from being used at any new power generators built to meet the requirement — though it left the door open for expansions at existing ones.

Some analysts argue California is exporting its energy policies to Western states, making electricity more costly and less reliable.

PG&E said in an emailed statement that it was pleased the commission didn’t adopt an earlier proposal to require 4 gigawatts of additional resources. Edison similarly said it was “supportive.” Sempra didn’t immediately respond with comment.

Extending Deadlines

The pending plant closures are being hastened by a 2020 deadline requiring California’s coastal generators to stop using aging seawater-cooling systems. Some gas-fired power plants have said they’ll simply close instead of installing costly new cooling systems. So the commission on Thursday also asked California water regulators to extend the deadline for five plants.

The Sierra Club, meanwhile, called on regulators to turn away from fossil fuels altogether, saying their decision Thursday “sets California back on its progress toward a clean energy future.”

The move to push back the deadline also faces opposition from neighboring towns. Redondo Beach Mayor Bill Brand, whose city is home to one of the plants in line for an extension, told the commission it wasn’t necessary, since California utilities already have plenty of electricity reserves.

“It’s just piling on to that reserve margin,” Brand said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News