Emissions plan to be presented at Whistler

Foote Creek I Wind Farm Repowering upgrades Wyoming turbines with new nacelles, towers, and blades, cutting 68 units to 12 while sustaining 41.6 MW, under PacifiCorp and Rocky Mountain Power's Energy Vision 2020 plan.

Key Points

Replacement at Foote Creek Rim I, cutting to 12 turbines while sustaining about 41.6 MW using modern 2-4.2 MW units.

✅ 12 turbines replace 68, output steady near 41.6 MW

✅ New nacelles, towers, blades; taller 500 ft turbines

✅ Part of PacifiCorp Energy Vision 2020 and Gateway West

A Wyoming utility company has filed a permit to replace its first wind farm—originally commissioned in 1998, composed of over 65 turbines—amid new gas capacity competing with nuclear in Ohio, located at Foote Creek Rim I. The replacement would downsize the number of turbines to 12, which would still generate roughly the same energy output.

According to the Star Tribune, PacifiCorp’s new installation would involve new nacelles, new towers and new blades. The permit was filed with Carbon County.

New WY Wind Farm

The replacement wind turbines will stand more than twice as tall as the old: Those currently installed stand 200 feet tall, whereas their replacements will tower closer to 500 feet. Though this move is part of the company’s overall plan to expand its state wind fleet as some utilities respond to declining coal returns in the Midwest, the work going into the Foote Creek site is somewhat special, noted David Eskelsen, spokesperson for Rocky Mountain Power, the western arm of PacifiCorp.

“Foote Creek I repowering is somewhat different from the repowering projects announced in the (Energy Vision) 2020 initiative,” he said. “Foote Creek is a complete replacement of the existing 68 foundations, towers, turbine nacelles and rotors (blades).”

Currently, the turbines at Foote Creek have 600 kilowatts capacity each; the replacements’ maximum production ranges from 2 megawatts to 4.2 megawatts each, with the total output remaining steady at 41.4 megawatts, a scale similar to a 30-megawatt wind expansion in Eastern Kings, though there will be a slight capacity increase to 41.6 megawatts, according to the Star Tribune.

As part of the wind farm repowering initiative, PacifiCorp is to become full owner and operator of the Foote Creek site. When the farm was originally built, an Oregon-based water and electric board was 21 percent owner; 37 percent of the project’s output was tied into a contract with the Bonneville Power Administration.

Otherwise, PacifiCorp is moving to further expand its state wind fleet in line with initiatives like doubling renewable electricity by 2030 in Saskatchewan, with the addition of three new wind farms—to be located in Carbon, Albany and Converse counties—which may add up to 1,150 megawatts of power.

According to PacifiCorp, the company has more than 1,000 megawatts of owned wind generation capability, along with long-term purchase agreements for more than 600 megawatts from other wind farms owned by other entities. Energy Vision 2020 refers to a $3.5 billion investment and company move that is looking to upgrade the company's existing wind fleet with newer technology, adding 1,150 megawatts of new wind resources by 2020 and a a new 140-mile Gateway West transmission segment in Wyoming, comparable to a transmission project in Missouri just energized.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. Residential Electricity Bills rose on stronger demand, inflation, and fuel costs, with higher retail prices, kWh consumption, and extreme weather driving 2022 spikes; forecasts point to stable summer usage and slight price increases.

Key Points

They are average household power costs shaped by prices, kWh use, weather, and upstream fuel costs.

✅ 2022 bills up 13% nominal, 5% real vs. 2021

✅ Retail price rose 11%; consumption up 2% to 907 kWh

✅ Fuel costs to plants up 34%, pressuring rates

In nominal terms, the average monthly electricity bill for residential customers in the United States increased 13% from 2021 to 2022, rising from $121 a month to $137 a month. After adjusting for inflation—which reached 8% in 2022, a 40-year high—electricity bills increased 5%. Last year had the largest annual increase in average residential electricity spending since we began calculating it in 1984. The increase was driven by a combination of more extreme temperatures, which increased U.S. consumption of electricity for both heating and cooling, and higher fuel costs for power plants, which drove up retail electricity prices nationwide.

Residential electricity customers’ monthly electricity bills are based on the amount of electricity consumed and the retail electricity price. Average U.S. monthly electricity consumption per residential customer increased from 886 kilowatthours (kWh) in 2021 to 907 kWh in 2022, even as U.S. electricity sales have declined over the past seven years. Both a colder winter and a hotter summer contributed to the 2% increase in average monthly electricity consumption per residential customer in 2022 because customers used more space heating during the winter and more air conditioning during the summer, with some states, such as Pennsylvania, facing sharp winter rate increases.

Although we don’t directly collect retail electricity prices, we do collect revenues from electricity providers that allow us to determine prices by dividing by consumption, and industry reports show major utilities spending more on electricity delivery than on power production. In 2022, the average U.S. residential retail electricity price was 15.12 cents/kWh, an 11% increase from 13.66 cents/kWh in 2021. After adjusting for inflation, U.S. residential electricity prices went up by 2.5%.

Higher fuel costs for power plants drove the increase in residential retail electricity prices. The cost of fossil fuels—including natural gas prices, coal, and petroleum—delivered to U.S. power plants increased 34%, from $3.82 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) in 2021 to $5.13/MMBtu in 2022. The higher fuel costs were passed along to residential customers and contributed to higher retail electricity prices, and Germany power prices nearly doubled over a year in a related trend.

In the first three months of 2023, the average U.S. residential monthly electricity bill was $133, or 5% higher than for the same time last year, according to data from our Electric Power Monthly. The increase was driven by a 13% increase in the average U.S. residential retail electricity price, which was partly offset by a 7% decrease in average monthly electricity consumption per residential customer, and industry outlooks also see U.S. power demand sliding 1% on milder weather. This summer, we expect that typical household electricity bills will be similar to last year’s, with customers paying about 2% more on average. The slight increase in electricity costs forecast for this summer stems from higher retail electricity prices but similar consumption levels as last summer.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Adams Nielson Solar Array, a 28 MW DC utility-scale project in Lind, WA, spans 200 acres with 81,700 panels, powering about 4,000 homes, supporting Avista’s Solar Select program and renewable energy, sustainability, and carbon reduction.

Key Points

Adams Nielson Solar Array is a 28 MW DC facility in Lind, WA, powering ~4,000 homes via Avista’s Solar Select.

✅ 81,700 panels across 200 acres in Eastern Washington

✅ Offsets emissions equal to removing 7,300 cars annually

✅ Collaboration by Avista, Strata Solar, WUTC, WSU Energy

Official commissioning of the Adams Nielson solar array located in Lind, WA occurred today. The 28 Megawatt DC array is comprised of 81,700 panels that span 200 acres and generates enough electricity to supply the equivalent of approximately 4,000 homes annually, similar to a new co-op solar project serving South Metro members.

“Avista’s interest in the development of Solar Select, a voluntary commercial solar program reflecting broader corporate adoption such as a corporate solar power plant commissioned by Arvato, is consistent with the Company’s ongoing commitment to provide customers with renewable energy choices at reasonable cost,” said Dennis Vermillion, president, Avista Corporation. “In recent years, an increasing number of Avista customers have expressed their expectations and challenges in acquiring renewable energy. Avista is pleased to lead this effort and develop renewable energy products that meet our customers’ needs today and into the future.” This interest is being generated by a mix of local and national customers across a variety of industries, including Huckleberry’s, Gonzaga University, Community Colleges of Spokane, Hotstart, Central Pre-Mix Concrete, a CRH Co., independently owned McDonald's franchise locations, Spokane City, Main Market and Community Building and VA Medical Center.

Jim Simon, director of sustainability at Gonzaga University said, “The Solar Select program helps Gonzaga University move even closer to achieving its goal of climate neutrality by 2050 by continuing to prioritize renewables in our energy portfolio, as other communities add projects like a municipal solar project to boost local supply. We are grateful for Avista’s leadership in this project and look forward to other opportunities to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.”

Spokane Mayor David Condon said, “The City of Spokane is pleased to partner with Avista through the Solar Select Program, as we continue to seek out opportunities that are both environmentally and financially responsible. The City already is a net producer of energy, generating more clean, green energy than our use of electricity, natural gas, and fuel, a milestone also seen with North Carolina's first wind farm now fully operational. We are excited to add even more clean energy to power City Hall.”

The Solar Select program created a cost-effective structure to bring solar energy to large business customers in Eastern Washington, allowing them to advance their desired sustainability goals and benefiting from industry service innovations led by companies like Omnidian expanding their global reach. The array is projected to deliver the environmental benefit equivalent of more than 7,300 cars removed from the road each year. This renewable energy program was made possible through a collaboration of Avista, Strata Solar, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, and the WSU Energy Program. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Electric Buses reduce urban emissions and noise, but require charging infrastructure, grid upgrades, and depot redesigns; they offer lower operating costs and simpler maintenance, with range limits influencing routes, schedules, and on-route fast charging.

Key Points

Battery-electric buses cut emissions and noise while lowering operating and maintenance costs for transit agencies.

✅ Lower emissions, noise; improved rider experience

✅ Requires charging, grid upgrades, depot redesigns

✅ Range limits affect routes; on-route fast charging helps

In lots of ways, the electric bus feels like a technology whose time has come. Transportation is responsible for about a quarter of global emissions, and those emissions are growing faster than in any other sector. While buses are just a small slice of the worldwide vehicle fleet, they have an outsize effect on the environment. That’s partly because they’re so dirty—one Bogotá bus fleet made up just 5 percent of the city’s total vehicles, but a quarter of its CO2, 40 percent of nitrogen oxide, and more than half of all its particulate matter vehicle emissions. And because buses operate exactly where the people are concentrated, we feel the effects that much more acutely.

Enter the electric bus. Depending on the “cleanliness” of the electric grid into which they’re plugged, e-buses are much better for the environment. They’re also just straight up nicer to be around: less vibration, less noise, zero exhaust. Plus, in the long term, e-buses have lower operating costs, and related efforts like US school bus electrification are gathering pace too.

So it makes sense that global e-bus sales increased by 32 percent last year, according to a report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, as the age of electric cars accelerates across markets worldwide. “You look across the electrification of cars, trucks—it’s buses that are leading this revolution,” says David Warren, the director of sustainable transportation at bus manufacturer New Flyer.

Today, about 17 percent of the world’s buses are electric—425,000 in total. But 99 percent of them are in China, where a national mandate promotes all sorts of electric vehicles. In North America, a few cities have bought a few electric buses, or at least run limited pilots, to test the concept out, and early deployments like Edmonton's first e-bus offer useful lessons as systems ramp up. California has even mandated that by 2029 all buses purchased by its mass transit agencies be zero-emission.

But given all the benefits of e-buses, why aren’t there more? And why aren’t they everywhere?

“We want to be responsive, we want to be innovative, we want to pilot new technologies and we’re committed to doing so as an agency,” says Becky Collins, the manager of corporate initiative at the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, which is currently on its second e-bus pilot program. “But if the diesel bus was a first-generation car phone, we’re verging on smartphone territory right now. It’s not as simple as just flipping a switch.”

One reason is trepidation about the actual electric vehicle. Some of the major bus manufacturers are still getting over their skis, production-wise. During early tests in places like Belo Horizonte, Brazil, e-buses had trouble getting over steep hills with full passenger loads. Albuquerque, New Mexico, canceled a 15-bus deal with the Chinese manufacturer BYD after finding equipment problems during testing. (The city also sued). Today’s buses get around 225 miles per charge, depending on topography and weather conditions, which means they have to re-up about once a day on a shorter route in a dense city. That’s an issue in a lot of places.

If you want to buy an electric bus, you need to buy into an entire electric bus system. The vehicle is just the start.

The number one thing people seem to forget about electric buses is that they need to get charged, and emerging projects such as a bus depot charging hub illustrate how infrastructure can scale. “We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles,” says Camron Gorguinpour, the global senior manager for the electric vehicles at the World Resources Institute, a research organization, which last month released twin reports on electric bus adoption. “The actual charging stations get lost in the mix.”

But charging stations are expensive—about $50,000 for your standard depot-based one. On-route charging stations, an appealing option for longer bus routes, can be two or three times that. And that’s not even counting construction costs. Or the cost of new land: In densely packed urban centers, movements inside bus depots can be tightly orchestrated to accommodate parking and fueling. New electric bus infrastructure means rethinking limited space, and operators can look to Toronto's TTC e-bus fleet for practical lessons on depot design. And it’s a particular pain when agencies are transitioning between diesel and electric buses. “The big issue is just maintaining two sets of fueling infrastructure,” says Hanjiro Ambrose, a doctoral student at UC Davis who studies transportation technology and policy.

“We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles. The actual charging stations get lost in the mix as the American EV boom gathers pace across sectors.”

Then agencies also have to get the actual electricity to their charging stations. This involves lengthy conversations with utilities about grid upgrades, rethinking how systems are wired, occasionally building new substations, and, sometimes, cutting deals on electric output, since electric truck fleets will also strain power systems in parallel. Because an entirely electrified bus fleet? It’s a lot to charge. Warren, the New Flyer executive, estimates it could take 150 megawatt-hours of electricity to keep a 300-bus depot charged up throughout the day. Your typical American household, by contrast, consumes 7 percent of that—per year. “That’s a lot of work by the utility company,” says Warren.

For cities outside of China—many of them still testing out electric buses and figuring out how they fit into their larger fleets—learning about what it takes to run one is part of the process. This, of course, takes money. It also takes time. Optimists say e-buses are more of a question of when than if. Bloomberg New Energy Finance projects that just under 60 percent of all fleet buses will be electric by 2040, compared to under 40 percent of commercial vans and 30 percent of passenger vehicles.

Which means, of course, that the work has just started. “With new technology, it always feels great when it shows up,” says Ambrose. “You really hope that first mile is beautiful, because the shine will come off. That’s always true.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Smart Grid Modernization unites distributed energy resources, energy storage, EV charging, advanced metering, and bidirectional power flows to upgrade transmission and distribution infrastructure for reliability, resilience, cybersecurity, and affordable, clean power.

Key Points

Upgrading grid hardware and software to integrate DERs, storage, and EVs for a reliable and affordable power system.

✅ Enables DER, storage, and EV integration with bidirectional flows

✅ Improves reliability, resilience, and grid cybersecurity

✅ Requires early investment in sensors, inverters, and analytics

Much has been written, predicted, and debated in recent years about the future of the electricity system. The discussion isn’t simply about fossil fuels versus renewables, as often dominates mainstream energy discourse. Rather, the discussion is focused on something much larger and more fundamental: the very design of how and where electricity should be generated, delivered, and consumed.

Central to this discussion are arguments in support of, or in opposition to, the traditional model versus that of the decentralized or “emerging” model. But this is a false choice. The only choice that needs making is how to best transition to a smarter grid, and do so in a reliable and affordable manner that reflects grid modernization affordability concerns for utilities today. And the most effective and immediate means to accomplish that is to encourage and facilitate early investment in grid-related infrastructure and technology.

The traditional, or centralized, model has evolved since the days of Thomas Edison, but the basic structure is relatively unchanged: generate electrons at a central power plant, transmit them over a unidirectional system of high-voltage transmission lines, and deliver them to consumers through local distribution networks. The decentralized, or emerging, model envisions a system that moves away from the central power station as the primary provider of electricity to a system in which distributed energy resources, energy storage, electric vehicles, peer-to-peer transactions, connected appliances and devices, and sophisticated energy usage, pricing, and load management software play a more prominent role.

Whether it’s a fully decentralized and distributed power system, or the more likely centralized-decentralized hybrid, it is apparent that the way in which electricity is produced, delivered, and consumed will differ from today’s traditional model. And yet, in many ways, the fundamental design and engineering that makes up today’s electric grid will serve as the foundation for achieving a more distributed future. Indeed, as the transition to a smarter grid ramps up, the grid’s basic structure will remain the underlying commonality, allowing the grid to serve as a facilitator to integrate emerging technologies, including EV charging stations, rooftop solar, demand-side management software, and other distributed energy resources, while maximizing their potential benefits and informing discussions about California’s grid reliability under ambitious transition goals.

A loose analogy here is the internet. In its infancy, the internet was used primarily for sending and receiving email, doing homework, and looking up directions. At the time, it was never fully understood that the internet would create a range of services and products that would impact nearly every aspect of everyday life from online shopping, booking travel, and watching television to enabling the sharing economy and the emerging “Internet of Things.”

Uber, Netflix, Amazon, and Nest would not be possible without the internet. But the rapid evolution of the internet did not occur without significant investment in internet-related infrastructure. From dial-up to broadband to Wi-Fi, companies have invested billions of dollars to update and upgrade the system, allowing the internet to maximize its offerings and give way to technological breakthroughs, innovative businesses, and ways to share and communicate like never before.  

The electric grid is similar; it is both the backbone and the facilitator upon which the future of electricity can be built. If the vision for a smarter grid is to deploy advanced energy technologies, create new business models, and transform the way electricity is produced, distributed, and consumed, then updating and modernizing existing infrastructure and building out new intelligent infrastructure need to be top priorities. But this requires money. To be sure, increased investment in grid-related infrastructure is the key component to transitioning to a smarter grid; a grid capable of supporting and integrating advanced energy technologies within a more digital grid architecture that will result in a cleaner, more modern and efficient, and reliable and secure electricity system.

The inherent challenges of deploying new technologies and resources — reliability, bidirectional flow, intermittency, visibility, and communication, to name a few, as well as emerging climate resilience concerns shaping planning today, are not insurmountable and demonstrate exactly why federal and state authorities and electricity sector stakeholders should be planning for and making appropriate investment decisions now. My organization, Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure, will release a report Wednesday addressing these challenges facing our infrastructure, and the opportunities a distributed smart grid would provide. From upgrading traditional wires and poles and integrating smart power inverters and real-time sensors to deploying advanced communications platforms and energy analytics software, there are numerous technologies currently available and capable of being deployed that warrant investment consideration.

Making these and similar investments will help to identify and resolve reliability issues earlier, and address vulnerabilities identified in the latest power grid report card findings, which in turn will create a stronger, more flexible grid that can then support additional emerging technologies, resulting in a system better able to address integration challenges. Doing so will ease the electricity evolution in the long-term and best realize the full reliability, economic, and environmental benefits that a smarter grid can offer.  

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News