U.S. Bancorp unit, SolarCity team up

Renewables Overtake Coal in the US, as solar, wind, and hydro expand grid share; EIA data show an energy transition accelerated by COVID-19, slashing emissions, displacing fossil fuels, and reshaping electricity generation and climate policy.

Key Points

It refers to the milestone where US renewable energy generation surpassed coal, marking a pivotal energy transition.

✅ EIA data show renewables topped coal consumption in 2019.

✅ Solar, wind, and hydro displaced aging, costly coal plants.

✅ COVID-19 demand drop accelerated the energy transition.

Solar, wind and other renewable sources have toppled coal in energy generation in the United States for the first time in over 130 years, with the coronavirus pandemic accelerating a decline in coal that has profound implications for the climate crisis.

Not since wood was the main source of American energy in the 19th century has a renewable resource been used more heavily than coal, but 2019 saw a historic reversal, building on wind and solar reaching 10% of U.S. generation in 2018, according to US government figures.

Coal consumption fell by 15%, down for the sixth year in a row, while renewables edged up by 1%, even as U.S. electricity use trended lower. This meant renewables surpassed coal for the first time since at least 1885, a year when Mark Twain published The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and America’s first skyscraper was erected in Chicago.

Electricity generation from coal fell to its lowest level in 42 years in 2019, with the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasting that renewables will eclipse coal as an electricity source this year, while a global eclipse by 2025 is also projected. On 21 May, the year hit its 100th day in which renewables have been used more heavily than coal.

“Coal is on the way out, we are seeing the end of coal,” said Dennis Wamsted, analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. “We aren’t going to see a big resurgence in coal generation, the trend is pretty clear.”

The ongoing collapse of coal would have been nearly unthinkable a decade ago, when the fuel source accounted for nearly half of America’s generated electricity, even as a brief uptick in 2021 was anticipated. That proportion may fall to under 20% this year, with analysts predicting a further halving within the coming decade.

A rapid slump since then has not been reversed despite the efforts of the Trump administration, which has dismantled a key Barack Obama-era climate rule to reduce emissions from coal plants and eased requirements that prevent coal operations discharging mercury into the atmosphere and waste into streams.

Coal releases more planet-warming carbon dioxide than any other energy source, with scientists warning its use must be rapidly phased out to achieve net-zero emissions globally by 2050 and avoid the worst ravages of the climate crisis.

Countries including the UK and Germany are in the process of winding down their coal sectors, and in Europe renewables are increasingly crowding out gas as well, although in the US the industry still enjoys strong political support from Trump.

“It’s a big moment for the market to see renewables overtake coal,” said Ben Nelson, lead coal analyst at Moody’s. “The magnitude of intervention to aid coal has not been sufficient to fundamentally change its trajectory, which is sharply downwards.”

Nelson said he expects coal production to plummet by a quarter this year but stressed that declaring the demise of the industry is “a very tough statement to make” due to ongoing exports of coal and its use in steel-making. There are also rural communities with power purchase agreements with coal plants, meaning these contracts would have to end before coal use was halted.

The coal sector has been beset by a barrage of problems, predominantly from cheap, abundant gas that has displaced it as a go-to energy source. The Covid-19 outbreak has exacerbated this trend, even as global power demand has surged above pre-pandemic levels. With plunging electricity demand following the shutting of factories, offices and retailers, utilities have plenty of spare energy to choose from and coal is routinely the last to be picked because it is more expensive to run than gas, solar, wind or nuclear.

Many US coal plants are ageing and costly to operate, forcing hundreds of closures over the past decade. Just this year, power companies have announced plans to shutter 13 coal plants, including the large Edgewater facility outside Sheboygan, Wisconsin, the Coal Creek Station plant in North Dakota and the Four Corners generating station in New Mexico – one of America’s largest emitters of carbon dioxide.

The last coal facility left in New York state closed earlier this year.

The additional pressure of the pandemic “will likely shutter the US coal industry for good”, said Yuan-Sheng Yu, senior analyst at Lux Research. “It is becoming clear that Covid-19 will lead to a shake-up of the energy landscape and catalyze the energy transition, with investors eyeing new energy sector plays as we emerge from the pandemic.”

Climate campaigners have cheered the decline of coal but in the US the fuel is largely being replaced by gas, which burns more cleanly than coal but still emits a sizable amount of carbon dioxide and methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, in its production, whereas in the EU wind and solar overtook gas last year.

Renewables accounted for 11% of total US energy consumption last year – a share that will have to radically expand if dangerous climate change is to be avoided. Petroleum made up 37% of the total, followed by gas at 32%. Renewables marginally edged out coal, while nuclear stood at 8%.

“Getting past coal is a big first hurdle but the next round will be the gas industry,” said Wamsted. “There are emissions from gas plants and they are significant. It’s certainly not over.”
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

U.S. Energy Dominance envisions deregulation, oil and gas growth, LNG exports, pipelines, and geopolitical leverage, while facing OPEC pricing power, infrastructure bottlenecks, climate policy pressures, and accelerating renewables in global markets.

Key Points

U.S. policy to grow fossil fuel output and exports via deregulation, bolstering energy security, geopolitical influence.

✅ Deregulation to expand drilling, pipelines, and export capacity

✅ Exposed to OPEC pricing, global shocks, and cost competitiveness

✅ Faces infrastructure, ESG finance, and renewables transition risks

Former President Donald Trump has consistently advocated for “energy dominance” as a cornerstone of his energy policy. In his vision, the United States would leverage its abundant natural resources to achieve energy self-sufficiency, flood global markets with cheap energy, and undercut competitors like Russia and OPEC nations. However, while the rhetoric resonates with many Americans, particularly those in energy-producing states, the pursuit of energy dominance faces significant real-world challenges that could limit its feasibility and impact.

The Energy Dominance Vision

Trump’s energy dominance strategy revolves around deregulation, increased domestic production of oil and gas, and the rollback of climate-oriented restrictions. During his presidency, he emphasized opening federal lands to drilling, accelerating the approval of pipelines, and, through an executive order, boosting uranium and nuclear energy initiatives, as well as withdrawing from international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord. The goal was not only to meet domestic energy demands but also to establish the U.S. as a major exporter of fossil fuels, thereby reducing reliance on foreign energy sources.

This approach gained traction during Trump’s first term, with the U.S. achieving record levels of oil and natural gas production. Energy exports surged, making the U.S. a net energy exporter for the first time in decades. Yet, critics argue that this policy prioritizes short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability, while supporters believe it provides a roadmap for energy security and geopolitical leverage.

Market Realities

The energy market is complex, influenced by factors beyond the control of any single administration, with energy crisis impacts often cascading across sectors. While the U.S. has significant reserves of oil and gas, the global market sets prices. Even if the U.S. ramps up production, it cannot insulate itself entirely from price shocks caused by geopolitical instability, OPEC production cuts, or natural disasters.

For instance, despite record production in the late 2010s, American consumers faced volatile gasoline prices during an energy crisis driven by $5 gas and external factors like tensions in the Middle East and fluctuating global demand. Additionally, the cost of production in the U.S. is often higher than in countries with more easily accessible reserves, such as Saudi Arabia. This limits the competitive advantage of U.S. energy producers in global markets.

Infrastructure and Environmental Concerns

A major obstacle to achieving energy dominance is infrastructure. Expanding oil and gas production requires investments in pipelines, export terminals, and refineries. However, these projects often face delays due to regulatory hurdles, legal challenges, and public opposition. High-profile pipeline projects like Keystone XL and Dakota Access have become battlegrounds between industry proponents and environmental activists, and cross-border dynamics such as support for Canadian energy projects amid tariff threats further complicate permitting, highlighting the difficulty of reconciling energy expansion with environmental and community concerns.

Moreover, the transition to cleaner energy sources is accelerating globally, with many countries committing to net-zero emissions targets. This trend could reduce the demand for fossil fuels in the long run, potentially leaving U.S. producers with stranded assets if global markets shift more quickly than anticipated.

Geopolitical Implications

Trump’s energy dominance strategy also hinges on the belief that U.S. energy exports can weaken adversaries like Russia and Iran. While increased American exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe have reduced the continent’s reliance on Russian gas, achieving total energy independence for allies is a monumental task. Europe’s energy infrastructure, designed for pipeline imports from Russia, cannot be overhauled overnight to accommodate LNG shipments.

Additionally, the influence of major producers like Saudi Arabia and the OPEC+ alliance remains significant, even as shifts in U.S. policy affect neighbors; in Canada, some viewed Biden as better for the energy sector than alternatives. These countries can adjust production levels to influence prices, sometimes undercutting U.S. efforts to expand its market share.

The Renewable Energy Challenge

The growing focus on renewable energy adds another layer of complexity. Solar, wind, and battery storage technologies are becoming increasingly cost-competitive with fossil fuels. Many U.S. states and private companies are investing heavily in clean energy to align with consumer preferences and global trends, amid arguments that stepping away from fossil fuels can bolster national security. This shift could dampen the domestic demand for oil and gas, challenging the long-term viability of Trump’s energy dominance agenda.

Moreover, international pressure to address climate change could limit the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. Financial institutions and investors are increasingly reluctant to fund projects perceived as environmentally harmful, further constraining growth in the sector.

While Trump’s call for U.S. energy dominance taps into a desire for economic growth and energy security, it faces numerous challenges. Global market dynamics, infrastructure bottlenecks, environmental concerns, and the transition to renewable energy all pose significant barriers to achieving the ambitious vision.

For the U.S. to navigate these challenges effectively, a balanced approach that incorporates both traditional energy sources and investments in clean energy is likely needed. Striking this balance will require careful policymaking that considers not just immediate economic gains but also long-term sustainability and global competitiveness.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Renewable Energy Cancellations highlight Doug Ford's move to scrap wind turbine contracts, citing electricity rate relief and taxpayer savings, while critics, the NDP, and industry warn of job losses, termination fees, and auditor scrutiny.

Key Points

Ontario's termination of renewable contracts, defended as cost and rate relief, faces disputes over savings and jobs.

✅ PCs cite electricity rate relief and taxpayer savings.

✅ Critics warn of job losses and termination fees.

✅ Auditor inquiry sought into contract cancellation costs.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford, whose new stance on wind power has drawn attention, said Thursday he is “proud” of his decision to tear up hundreds of renewable energy deals, a move that his government acknowledges could cost taxpayers more than $230 million.

Ford dismissed criticism that his Progressive Conservatives are wasting public money, telling a news conference that the cancellation of 750 contracts signed by the previous Liberal government will save cash, even as Ontario moves to reintroduce renewable energy projects in the coming years.

“I’m so proud of that,” Ford said of his decision. “I’m proud that we actually saved the taxpayers $790 million when we cancelled those terrible, terrible, terrible wind turbines that really for the last 15 years have destroyed our energy file.”

Later Thursday, Ford went further in defending the cancelled contracts, saying “if we had the chance to get rid of all the wind mills we would,” though a court ruling near Cornwall challenged such cancellations.

The NDP first reported the cost of the cancellations Tuesday, saying the $231 million figure was listed as “other transactions”, buried in government documents detailing spending in the 2018-2019 fiscal year.

The Progressive Conservatives have said the final cost of the cancellations, which include the decommissioning of a wind farm already under construction in Prince Edward County, Ont., has yet to be established, amid warnings about wind project cancellation costs from developers.

The government has said it tore up the deals because the province didn’t need the power and it was driving up electricity rates, and the decision will save millions over the life of the contracts. Industry officials have disputed those savings, saying the cancellations will just mean job losses for small business, and ignore wind power’s growing competitiveness in electricity markets.

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath has asked Ontario’s auditor general to investigate the contracts and their termination fees, amid debates over Ontario’s electricity future among leadership contenders. She called Ford’s remarks on Thursday “ridiculous.”

“Every jurisdiction around the world is trying to figure out how to bring more renewables onto their electricity grids,” she said. “This government is taking us backwards and costing us at the very least $231 million in tearing these energy contracts.”

At the federal level, a recent green electricity contract with an Edmonton company underscores that shift.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Alliant Energy Net-Zero Carbon Plan outlines carbon-neutral electricity by 2050, coal retirements by 2040, major solar and wind additions, gas transition, battery storage, hydrogen, and carbon credits to reduce emissions and lower customer costs.

Key Points

Alliant Energy's strategy to reach carbon-neutral power by 2050 via coal phaseout, renewables, storage, and offsets.

✅ Targets net-zero electricity by 2050

✅ Retires all coal by 2040; expands solar and wind

✅ Uses storage, hydrogen, and offsets to bridge gaps

Alliant Energy has joined a small but growing group of utilities aiming for carbon-neutral electricity by 2050.

In a report released Wednesday, the Madison-based company announced a goal of “net-zero carbon dioxide emissions” from its electricity generation along with plans to eliminate all coal-powered generation by 2040, a decade earlier than the company’s previous target.

Alliant, which is pursuing plans that would make it the largest solar energy generator in Wisconsin, said it is on track to cut its 2005 carbon emissions in half by 2030.

Both goals are in line with targets an international group of scientists warn is necessary to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. But reducing greenhouse gasses was not the primary motivation, said executive vice president and general counsel Jim Gallegos.

“The primary driver is focused on our customers and communities and setting them up … to be competitive,” Gallegos said. “We do think renewables are going to do it better than fossil fuels.”

Alliant has told regulators it can save customers up to $6.5 billion over the next 35 years by adding more than 1,600 megawatts of renewable generation, closing one of its two remaining Wisconsin coal plants and taking other undisclosed actions.

In a statement, Alliant chairman and CEO John Larsen said the goal is part of broader corporate and social responsibility efforts “guided by our strategy and designed to deliver on our purpose — to serve customers and build stronger communities.”

Coal out; gas remains
The goal applies only to Alliant’s electricity generation — the company has no plans to stop distributing natural gas for heating — and is “net-zero,” meaning the company could use some form of carbon capture or purchase carbon credits to offset continuing emissions.

The plan relies heavily on renewable generation — seen in regions embracing clean power across North America — including the addition of up to 1,000 megawatts of new Wisconsin solar plants by the end of 2023 and 1,000 megawatts of Iowa wind generation added over the past four years — as well as natural gas generators to replace its aging coal fleet.

But Jeff Hanson, Alliant’s director of sustainability, said eliminating or offsetting all carbon emissions will require new tools, such as battery storage or possibly carbon-free fuels such as hydrogen, and awareness of the Three Mile Island debate over the role of nuclear power in the mix.

“Getting to the 2040 goals, that’s all based on the technologies of today,” Hanson said. “Can we get to net zero today? The challenge would be a pretty high bar to clear.”

Gallegos said the plan does not call for the construction of more large-scale natural gas generators like the recently completed $700 million West Riverside Energy Center in Beloit, though natural gas will remain a key piece of Alliant’s generation portfolio.

Alliant announced plans in May to close its 400-megawatt Edgewater plant in Sheboygan by the end of 2022, echoing how Alberta is retiring coal by 2023 as markets shift, but has not provided a date for the shutdown of the jointly owned 1,100-megawatt Columbia Energy Center near Portage, which received about $1 billion worth of pollution-control upgrades in the past decade.

Alliant’s Iowa subsidiary plans to convert its 52-year-old, 200-megawatt Burlington plant to natural gas by the end of next year and a pair of small coal-fired generators in Linn County by 2025. That leaves the 250-megawatt plant in Lansing, which is now 43 years old, and the 734-megawatt Ottumwa plant as the remaining coal-fired generators, even as others keep a U.S. coal plant running indefinitely elsewhere.

Earlier this year, the utility asked regulators to approve a roughly $900 million investment in six solar farms across the state with a total capacity of 675 megawatts, similar to plans in Ontario to seek new wind and solar to address supply needs. The company plans to apply next year for permission to add up to 325 additional megawatts.

Alliant said the carbon-neutral plan, which entails closing Edgewater along with other undisclosed actions, would save customers between $2 billion and $6.5 billion through 2055 compared to the status quo.

Tom Content, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, said the consumer advocacy group wants to ensure that ratepayers aren’t forced to continue paying for coal plants that are no longer needed while also paying for new energy sources and would like to see a bigger role for energy efficiency and more transparency about the utilities’ pathways to decarbonization.

‘They could do better’
Environmental groups said the announcement is a step in the right direction, though they say utilities need to do even more to protect the environment and consumers.

Amid competition from cheaper natural gas and renewable energy and pressure from environmentally conscious investors, U.S. utilities have been closing coal plants at a record pace in recent years, as industry CEOs say a coal comeback is unlikely in the U.S., a trend that is expected to continue through the next decade.

“This is not industry leadership when we’re talking about emission reductions,” said Elizabeth Katt Reinders, regional campaign director for the Sierra Club, which has called on Alliant to retire the Columbia plant by 2026.

Closing Edgewater and Columbia would get Alliant nearly halfway to its emissions goals while saving customers more than $250 million over the next decade, according to a Sierra Club study released earlier this year.

“Retiring Edgewater was a really good decision. Investing in 1,000 megawatts of new solar is game-changing for Wisconsin,” Katt Reinders said. “In the same breath we can say this emissions reduction goal is unambitious. Our analysis has shown they can do far more far sooner.”

Scott Blankman, a former Alliant executive who now works as director of energy and air programs for Clean Wisconsin, said Alliant should not run the Columbia plant for another 20 years.

“If they’re saying they’re looking to get out of coal by 2040 in Wisconsin I’d be very disappointed,” Blankman said. “I do think they could do better.”

Alliant is the 15th U.S. investor-owned utility to set a net-zero target, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, joining Madison Gas and Electric, which announced a similar goal last year. Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, which serves customers in western Wisconsin, was the first large investor-owned utility to set such a target, as state utilities report declining returns in coal operations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. 100% Tariff on Chinese EVs aims to protect domestic manufacturing, counter subsidies, and reshape the EV market, but could raise prices, disrupt supply chains, invite retaliation, and complicate climate policy and trade relations.

Key Points

A 100% import duty on Chinese EVs to boost U.S. manufacturing, counter subsidies, and address supply chain risks.

✅ Protects domestic EV manufacturing and jobs

✅ Counters alleged subsidies and IP concerns

✅ May raise prices, limit choice, trigger retaliation

President Joe Biden's administration recently made headlines with its announcement of a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), marking a significant escalation in trade tensions between the two economic powerhouses. The decision, framed as a measure to protect American industries and promote domestic manufacturing, has sparked debates over its potential impact on the EV market, global supply chains, and bilateral relations between the United States and China.

The imposition of a 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs reflects the Biden administration's broader efforts to revitalize the American automotive industry and promote the transition to electric vehicles as part of its climate agenda and tighter EPA emissions rules that could accelerate adoption. By imposing tariffs on imported EVs, particularly those from China, the administration aims to incentivize domestic production and create jobs in the growing green economy, and to secure critical EV metals through allied supply efforts. Additionally, the tariff is seen as a response to concerns about unfair trade practices, including intellectual property theft and market distortions, allegedly perpetuated by Chinese companies.

However, the announcement has triggered a range of reactions from various stakeholders, with both proponents and critics offering contrasting perspectives on the potential consequences of such a policy. Proponents argue that the tariff will help level the playing field for American automakers, who face stiff competition from Chinese companies benefiting from government subsidies and lower production costs. They contend that promoting domestic manufacturing of EVs will not only create high-quality jobs but also enhance national security by reducing dependence on foreign supply chains at a time when an EV inflection point is approaching.

On the other hand, critics warn that the 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs could have unintended consequences, including higher prices for consumers, as seen in the UK EV prices and Brexit debate, disruptions to global supply chains, and retaliatory measures from China. Chinese EV manufacturers, such as NIO, BYD, and XPeng, have been gaining momentum in the global market, offering competitive products at relatively affordable prices. The tariff could limit consumer choice at a time when U.S. EV market share dipped in Q1 2024, potentially slowing the adoption of electric vehicles and undermining efforts to combat climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Moreover, the tariff announcement comes at a sensitive time for U.S.-China relations, which have been strained by various issues, including trade disputes, human rights concerns, and geopolitical tensions. The imposition of tariffs on Chinese-made EVs could further exacerbate bilateral tensions, potentially leading to retaliatory measures from China and escalating trade frictions. As the world's two largest economies, the United States and China have significant economic interdependencies, and any escalation in trade tensions could have far-reaching implications for global trade and economic stability.

In response to the Biden administration's announcement, Chinese officials have expressed concerns and called for dialogue to resolve trade disputes through negotiation and mutual cooperation. China has also emphasized its commitment to fair trade practices and compliance with international rules and regulations governing trade.

Moving forward, the Biden administration faces the challenge of balancing its domestic priorities with the need to maintain constructive engagement with China and other trading partners, even as EV charging networks scale under its electrification push. While promoting domestic manufacturing and protecting American industries are legitimate policy goals, achieving them without disrupting global trade and undermining diplomatic relations requires careful deliberation and strategic foresight.

In conclusion, President Biden's announcement of a 100% tariff on Chinese-made electric vehicles reflects his administration's commitment to revitalizing American industries and promoting domestic manufacturing. However, the decision has raised concerns about its potential impact on the EV market, global supply chains, and U.S.-China relations. As policymakers navigate these complexities, finding a balance between protecting domestic interests and fostering international cooperation will be crucial to achieving sustainable economic growth and addressing global challenges such as climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Nova Scotia Integrated Resource Plan evaluates NSPI supply options, UARB oversight, Muskrat Falls imports, coal retirements, wind and biomass expansion, transmission upgrades, storage, and least-cost pathways to decarbonize the grid for ratepayers.

Key Points

A 25-year roadmap assessing supply, imports, costs, and emissions to guide least-cost decarbonization for Nova Scotia.

✅ Compares wind, biomass, gas, imports, and storage costs

✅ Addresses coal retirements, emissions caps, and reliability

✅ Recommends transmission upgrades and Muskrat Falls utilization

Maintaining a viable electricity network requires good long-term planning and, as a recent grid operations report notes, ongoing operational improvements. The existing stock of generating assets can become obsolete through aging, changes in fuel prices or environmental considerations. Future changes in demand must be anticipated.

Periodically, an integrated resource plan is created to predict how all this will add up during the ensuing 25 years. That process is currently underway and is led by Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) and will be submitted for approval to the Utilities and Review Board (UARB).

Coal-fired plants are still the largest single source of electricity in Nova Scotia. They need to be replaced with more environmentally friendly sources when they reach the end of their useful lives. Other sources include wind, hydroelectricity from rivers, biomass, as seen in increased biomass use by NS Power, natural gas and imports from other jurisdictions.

Imports are used sparingly today but will be an important source when the electricity from Muskrat Falls comes on stream. That project has big capacity. It can produce all the power needed in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), where Quebec's power ambitions influence regional flows, plus the amount already committed to Nova Scotia, and still have a lot left over.

Some sources of electricity are more valuable than others. The daily amount of power from wind and solar cannot be controlled. Fuel-based sources and hydro can.

Utilities make their profits by providing the capital necessary to build infrastructure. Most of the money is borrowed but a portion, typically 30 per cent, usually comes from NSPI or a sister company. On that they receive a rate of return of nine per cent. Nova Scotia can borrow money today at less than two per cent.

The largest single investment of that type is the $1.577-billion Maritime Link connecting power from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia. It continues through to the New Brunswick border to facilitate exports to the United States. NSPI’s sister company, NSP Maritime Link Inc. (NSPML), is making nine per cent on $473 million of the cost.

There is little unexploited hydro capacity in Nova Scotia and there will not be any new coal-fired plants. Large-scale solar is not competitive in Nova Scotia’s climate. Nova Scotia’s needs would not accommodate the amount of nuclear capacity needed to be cost-effective, even as New Brunswick explores small reactors in its strategy.

So the candidates for future generating resources are wind, natural gas, biomass (though biomass criticism remains) and imports from other jurisdictions. Tidal is a promising opportunity but is still searching for a commercially viable technology. 

NSPI is commendably transparent about its process (irp.nspower.ca). At this stage there is little indication of the conclusions they are reaching but that will presumably appear in due course.

The mountains of detail might obscure the fact that NSPI is not an unbiased arbiter of choices for the future.

It is reported that they want to prematurely close the Trenton 5 coal plant in 2023-25. It is valued at $88.5 million. If it is closed early, ratepayers will still have to pay off the remaining value even though the plant will be idle. NSPI wants to plan a decommissioning of five of its other seven plants. There is a federal emissions constraint but retiring coal plants earlier than needed will cost ratepayers a lot.

Whenever those plants are closed, there will be a need for new sources of power. NSPI is proposing to plan for new investments in new transmission infrastructure to facilitate imports. Other possibilities would be additional wind farms, consistent with the shift to more wind and solar projects, thermal plants that burn natural gas or biomass, or storage for excess wind power that arrives before it can be used. The investment in storage could be anywhere from $20 million to $200 million.

These will add to the asset burden funded by ratepayers, even as industrial customers seek discounts while still paying for shuttered coal infrastructure.

External sources of new power will not provide NSPI the same opportunity: wind power by independent producers might be less expensive because they are willing to settle for less than nine per cent or because they are more efficient. Buying more power from Muskrat Falls will use transmission infrastructure we are already paying for. If a successful tidal technology is found, it will not be owned by NSPI or a sister company, which are no longer trying to perfect the technology.

This is not to suggest that NSPI would misrepresent the alternatives. But they can tilt the discussion in their favour. How tough will they be negotiating for additional Muskrat Falls power when it hurts their profits? Arguing for premature coal retirement on environmental grounds is fair game but whether the cost should be accepted is a political choice. 

NSPI is in a conflict of interest. We need a different process. An independent body should author the integrated resource plan. They should be fully informed about NSPI’s views.

They should communicate directly with Newfoundland and Labrador for Muskrat power, with independent wind producers, and with tidal power companies. The UARB cannot do any of these things.

The resulting plan should undergo the same UARB review that NSPI’s version would. This enhances the likelihood that Nova Scotians will get the least-cost alternative.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News