France urges world review of nuclear

California Electricity Prices are surging across PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E territories, driven by fixed grid costs, wildfire mitigation, CARE subsidies, and Net Energy Metering, burdening low-income renters and increasing statewide utility debt, CPUC reports show.

Key Points

High rates driven by fixed grid costs and policies, burdening low-income customers across PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E.

✅ Fixed costs: transmission, distribution, wildfire mitigation

✅ Solar NEM shifts grid costs onto remaining ratepayers

✅ CPUC, CARE, LIHEAP aim to relieve rising utility debt

California's electricity prices are among the highest in the country, new research says, and those costs are falling disproportionately on a customer base that's already struggling to pay their bills.

PG&E customers pay about 80 percent more per kilowatt-hour than the national average, according to a study by the energy institute at UC Berkeley's Haas Business School with the nonprofit think tank Next 10. The study analyzed the rates of the state's three largest investor-owned utilities and found that Southern California Edison charged 45 percent more than the national average, while San Diego Gas & Electric charged double. Even low-income residents enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy program paid more than the average American.

"California's retail prices are out of line with utilities across the country," said UC Berkeley assistant professor and study co-author Meredith Fowlie, citing Hawaii and some New England states among the outliers with even higher rates. "And they're increasing, as regulators face calls for action across the state."

So why are prices so high?
One reason is that California's size and geography inflate the "fixed" costs of operating its electric system, even as the state considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid in parallel, which include maintenance, generation, transmission, and distribution as well as public programs like CARE and wildfire mitigation, according to the study. Those costs don't change based on how much electricity residents consume, yet between 66 and 77 percent of Californians' electricity bills are used to offset the costs of those programs, the study found.

These are legitimate expenses, Fowlie said. However, because lower-income residents use only moderately less electricity than higher income households, they end up with a disproportionate share of the burden, according to the study. And while the bills of older, wealthier Californians continue to decrease as they adopt cost-efficient alternatives like the state's Net Energy Metering solar program and the resulting solar power cost shift dynamic, costs will keep rising for a shrinking customer base composed mostly of low- and middle-income renters who still use electricity as their main energy source.

"When households adopt solar, they're not paying their fair share," Fowlie said. While solar users generate power that decreases their bills, they still rely on the state's electric grid for much of their power consumption - without paying for its fixed costs like others do.

"As this continues it's going to make electricity even more unaffordable," said F. Noel Perry, founder of Next 10, which funds nonpartisan research on the economy and environment.

PG&E this month raised its electricity rates 3.7 percent, amounting to a $5.01 a month increase for the average residential customer, who now pays $138.85 a month for electricity. It was the second increase this year, as regulators consider major changes to electric bills statewide, said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, who noted that higher rates are particularly difficult for those who have lost their jobs in the pandemic. The California Public Utilities Commission last year approved a PG&E plan for more incremental increases through Dec. 31, 2022.

PG&E spokesperson Kristi Jourdan said in an email statement that the company was committed to keeping prices as low as possible as the state weighs income-based flat-fee utility bills proposals, and that although some programs are meant to be subsidized through rates, "in other cases, given that some customers have greater access to energy alternatives, the remaining customers - often those with limited means - are left paying unintended subsidies."

The costs quickly became overwhelming for Fretea Sylver, who rents a small house in Castro Valley and lost much of her work as the owner of a small woodwork business early in the pandemic. "They're little tiny changes but they accumulate. You turn around and you're like wait a second, why is my bill $20 more?," Sylver said. "And you have to pay it, no matter what."

Many more are unable to pay. Between February and December of last year, Californians accumulated more than $650 million in late payments from their utility providers, according to an analysis by the CPUC. In 2019, utility debt fell $71,646,869 from the prior year.

Sylver, who was on unemployment for 10 months last year, accumulated over $600 in unpaid PG&E bills. "We sort of went into a bit of debt, having to use credit cards and loans to sustain what we had to pay for. We're trying to catch up," Sylver said. The family received some help from the federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which provides up to $1,000 to those who are late on their utility bills.

The study identified improvements to make California's power grid more equitable, such as income-based fixed electricity charges for the grid's cost that are based on income. Republican state senators this week called on the state to use federal relief money to forgive the billions Californians owe in utility debt, even as some lawmakers move to overturn income-based utility charges amid ongoing debate. Californians are currently protected by a statewide moratorium on disconnection for nonpayment of electricity bills through June 30. The CPUC this month began taking public input on the issue of how to grant some relief to those who have fallen behind on their utility bills.

This article is part of the California Divide, a collaboration among newsrooms examining income inequality and economic survival in California.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ofgem Renewables Obligations drive supplier payments for renewables fees, feed-in tariffs, and renewable generation, with non-payment risking supply licences amid the price cap and volatile wholesale prices across the UK energy market.

Key Points

Mandatory payments by suppliers funding renewables via feed-in tariffs; non-payment can trigger supply licence revoking.

✅ Covers Renewables Obligation and Feed-in Tariff scheme compliance.

✅ Non-payment can lead to Ofgem action and licence loss.

✅ Affected by price cap and wholesale price volatility.

Seven small British energy suppliers owe a total of 34 million pounds ($43.74 million) in renewables fees, amid a renewables backlog that has stalled projects, and could face losing their supply licences if they cannot pay, energy regulator Ofgem reports.

Under Britain’s energy market rules, suppliers of energy must meet so-called renewables obligations and feed-in tariffs, including households' ability to sell solar power back to energy firms, which are imposed on them by the government to help fund renewable power generation.

Several small energy companies have gone bust over the past two years, a trend echoed by findings from a global utility study on renewable priorities, as they struggled to pay the renewables fees and as their profits were affected by a price cap on the most commonly used tariffs and fluctuating wholesale prices, even as a 10 GW contract brings new renewable capacity onto the UK grid.

Ofgem has called on the companies to make necessary payments by Oct. 31, as moves to offer community-generated power to all UK customers progress.

“If they do not pay Ofgem could start the process of revoking their licences to supply energy,” it said in a statement, as offshore wind power continues to scale nationwide.

The seven suppliers are, amid debates over clean energy impacts, Co-Operative Energy Limited; Flow Energy Limited; MA Energy Limited; Nabuh Energy Limited; Robin Hood Energy Limited; Symbio Energy Limited and Tonik Energy Limited. ($1 = 0.7773 pounds)

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

BC Hydro Electricity Imports shape CleanBC claims as Powerex trades cross-border electricity, blending hydro with coal and gas supplies, affecting emissions, grid carbon intensity, and how electric vehicles and households assess "clean" power.

Key Points

Powerex buys power for BC Hydro, mixing hydro with coal and gas, shifting emissions and affecting CleanBC targets.

✅ Powerex trades optimize price, not carbon intensity

✅ Imports can include coal- and gas-fired generation

✅ Emissions affect EV and CleanBC decarbonization claims

British Columbians naturally assume they’re using clean power when they fire up holiday lights, juice up a cell phone or plug in a shiny new electric car. 

That’s the message conveyed in advertisements for the CleanBC initiative launched by the NDP government, amid indications that residents are split on going nuclear according to a survey, which has spent $3.17 million on a CleanBC “information campaign,” including almost $570,000 for focus group testing and telephone town halls, according to the B.C. finance ministry.

“We’ll reduce air pollution by shifting to clean B.C. energy,” say the CleanBC ads, which feature scenic photos of hydro reservoirs. “CleanBC: Our Nature. Our Power. Our Future.” 

Yet despite all the bumph, British Columbians have no way of knowing if the electricity they use comes from a coal-fired plant in Alberta or Wyoming, a nuclear plant in Washington, a gas-fired plant in California or a hydro dam in B.C. 

Here’s why. 

BC Hydro’s wholly-owned corporate subsidiary, Powerex Corp., exports B.C. power when prices are high and imports power from other jurisdictions when prices are low. 

In 2018, for instance, B.C. imported more electricity than it exported — not because B.C. has a power shortage (it has a growing surplus due to the recent spate of mill closures and the commissioning of two new generating stations in B.C.) but because Powerex reaps bigger profits when BC Hydro slows down generators to import cheaper power, especially at night.

“B.C. buys its power from outside B.C., which we would argue is not clean,” says Martin Mullany, interim executive director for Clean Energy BC. 

“A good chunk of the electricity we use is imported,” Mullany says. “In reality we are trading for brown power” — meaning power generated from conventional ‘dirty’ sources such as coal and gas. 

Wyoming, which generates almost 90 per cent of its power from coal, was among the 12 U.S. states that exported power to B.C. last year. (Notably, B.C. did not export any electricity to Wyoming in 2018.)

Utah, where coal-fired power plants produce 70 per cent of the state’s energy amid debate over the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity, and Montana, which derives about 55 per cent of its power from coal, also exported power to B.C. last year. 

So did Nebraska, which gets 63 per cent of its power from coal, 15 per cent from nuclear plants, 14 per cent from wind and three per cent from natural gas.   

Coal is responsible for about 23 per cent of the power generated in Arizona, another exporter to B.C., while gas produces about 44 per cent of the electricity in that state.  

In 2017, the latest year for which statistics are available, electricity imports to B.C. totalled just over 1.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, according to the B.C. environment ministry — roughly the equivalent of putting 255,000 new cars on the road, using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s calculation of 4.71 tonnes of annual carbon emissions for a standard passenger vehicle. 

These figures far outstrip the estimated local and upstream emissions from the contested Woodfibre LNG plant in Squamish that is expected to release annual emissions equivalent to 170,000 new cars on the road.

Import emissions cast a new light on B.C.’s latest “milestone” announcement that 30,000 electric cars are now among 3.7 million registered vehicles in the province.

BC Electric Vehicles Announcement Horgan Heyman Mungall Weaver
In November of 2018 the province announced a new target to have all new light-duty cars and trucks sold to be zero-emission vehicles by the year 2040. Photo: Province of B.C. / Flickr

“Making sure more of the vehicles driven in the province are powered by BC Hydro’s clean electricity is one of the most important steps to reduce [carbon] pollution,” said the November 28 release from the energy ministry, noting that electrification has prompted a first call for power in 15 years from BC Hydro.

Mullany points out that Powerex’s priority is to make money for the province and not to reduce emissions.

“It’s not there for the cleanest outcome,” he said. “At some time we have to step up to say it’s either the money or the clean power, which is more important to us?”

Electricity bought and sold by little-known, unregulated Powerex
These transactions are money-makers for Powerex, an opaque entity that is exempt from B.C.’s freedom of information laws. 

Little detailed information is available to the public about the dealings of Powerex, which is overseen by a board of directors comprised of BC Hydro board members and BC Hydro CEO and president Chris O’Reilly. 

According to BC Hydro’s annual service plan, Powerex’s net income ranged from $59 million to $436 million from 2014 to 2018. 

“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.” 

Powerex’s CEO Tom Bechard — the highest paid public servant in the province — took home $939,000 in pay and benefits last year, earning $430,000 of his executive compensation through a bonus and holdback based on his individual and company performance.  

“The problem is that all of the trade goes on at Powerex and Powerex is an unregulated entity,” Mullany says. 

“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.” 

In 2018, Powerex exported 8.7 million megawatt hours of electricity to the U.S. for a total value of almost $570 million, according to data from the Canada Energy Regulator. That same year, Powerex imported 9.6 million megawatt hours of electricity from the U.S. for almost $360 million. 

Powerex sold B.C.’s publicly subsidized power for an average of $87 per megawatt hour in 2018, according to the Canada Energy Regulator. It imported electricity for an average of $58 per megawatt hour that year. 

In an emailed statement in response to questions from The Narwhal, BC Hydro said “there can be a need to import some power to meet our electricity needs” due to dam reservoir fluctuations during the year and from year to year.

‘Impossible’ to determine if electricity is from coal or wind power
Emissions associated with electricity imports are on average “significantly lower than the emissions of a natural gas generating plant because we mostly import electricity from hydro generation and, increasingly, power produced from wind and solar,” BC Hydro claimed in its statement. 

But U.S. energy economist Robert McCullough says there’s no way to distinguish gas and coal-fired U.S. power exports to B.C. from wind or hydro power, noting that “electrons lack labels.” 

Similarly, when B.C. imports power from Alberta, where generators are shifting to gas and 48.5 per cent of electricity production is coal-fired and 38 per cent comes from natural gas, there’s no way to tell if the electricity is from coal, wind or gas, McCullough says.

“It really is impossible to make that determination.” 

Wyoming Gilette coal pits NASA
The Gillette coal pits in Wyoming, one of the largest coal-producers in the U.S. Photo: NASA Earth Observatory

Neither the Canada Energy Regulator nor Statistics Canada could provide annual data on electricity imports and exports between B.C. and Alberta. 

But you can watch imports and exports in real time on this handy Alberta website, which also lists Alberta’s power sources. 

In 2018, California, Washington and Oregon supplied considerably more power to B.C. than other states, according to data from Canada Energy Regulator. 

Washington, where about one-quarter of generated power comes from fossil fuels, led the pack, with more than $339 million in electricity exports to B.C. 

California, which still gets more than half of its power from gas-fired plants even though it leads the U.S. in renewable energy with substantial investments in wind, solar and geothermal, was in second place, selling about $18.4 million worth of power to B.C. 

And Oregon, which produces about 43 per cent of its power from natural gas and six per cent from coal, exported about $6.2 million worth of electricity to B.C. last year. 

By comparison, Nebraska’s power exports to B.C. totalled about $1.6 million, Montana’s added up to $1.3 million,  Nevada’s were about $706,000 and Wyoming’s were about $346,000.

Clean electrons or dirty electrons?
Dan Woynillowicz, deputy director of Clean Energy Canada, which co-chaired the B.C. government’s Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council, says B.C. typically exports power to other jurisdictions during peak demand. 

Gas-fired plants and hydro power can generate electricity quickly, while coal-fired power plants take longer to ramp up and wind power is variable, Woynillowicz notes. 

“When you need power fast and there aren’t many sources that can supply it you’re willing to pay more for it.”

Woynillowicz says “the odds are high” that B.C. power exports are displacing dirty power.

Elsewhere in Canada, analysts warn that Ontario's electricity could get dirtier as policies change, raising similar concerns.

“As a consumer you never know whether you’re getting a clean electron or a dirty electron. You’re just getting an electron.” 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Trump NEPA Overhaul streamlines environmental reviews, tightening 'reasonably foreseeable' effects, curbing cumulative impacts, codifying CEQ greenhouse gas guidance, expediting permits for pipelines, highways, and wind projects with two-year EIS limits and one lead agency.

Key Points

Trump NEPA Overhaul streamlines reviews, trims cumulative impacts, keeps GHG analysis for foreseeable effects.

✅ Limits cumulative and indirect impacts; emphasizes foreseeable effects

✅ Caps EIS at two years; one-year environmental assessments

✅ One lead agency; narrower NEPA triggers for low federal funding

President Trump has announced plans for overhauling rules surrounding the nation’s bedrock environmental law, and administration officials refuted claims they were downplaying greenhouse gas emissions, as the administration also pursues replacement power plant rules in related areas.

The president, during remarks at the White House with supporters and Cabinet officials, said he wanted to fix the nation’s “regulatory nightmare” through new guidelines for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.

“America is a nation of builders,” he said. But it takes too long to get a permit, and that’s “big government at its absolute worst.”

The president said, “We’re maintaining America’s world-class standards of environmental protection.” He added, “We’re going to have very strong regulation, but it’s going to go very quickly.”

NEPA says the federal government must consider alternatives to major projects like oil pipelines, highways and bridges that could inflict environmental harm. The law also gives communities input.

The Council on Environmental Quality has not updated the implementing rules in decades, and both energy companies and environmentalists want them reworked, even as some industry groups warned against rushing electricity pricing changes under related policy debates.

But they patently disagree on how to change the rules.

A central fight surrounds whether the government considers climate change concerns when analyzing a project.

Environmentalists want agencies to look more at “cumulative” or “indirect” impacts of projects. The Trump plan shuts the door on that.

“Analysis of cumulative effects is not required,” the plan states, adding that CEQ “proposes to make amendments to simplify the definition of effects by consolidating the definition into a single paragraph.”

CEQ Chairwoman Mary Neumayr told reporters during a conference call that definitions in the current rules were the “subject of confusion.”

The proposed changes, she said, do in fact eliminate the terms “cumulative” and “indirect,” in favor of more simplified language.

Effects must be “reasonably foreseeable” and require a “reasonably close causal relationship” to the proposed action, she added. “It does not exclude considerations of greenhouse gas emissions,” she said, pointing to parallel EPA proposals for new pollution limits on coal and gas power plants as context.

Last summer, CEQ issued proposed guidance on greenhouse gas reviews in project permitting. The nonbinding document gave agencies broad authority when considering emissions (Greenwire, June 21, 2019).

Environmentalists scoffed and said the proposed guidance failed to incorporate the latest climate science and look at how projects could be more resilient in the face of severe weather and sea-level rise.

The proposed NEPA rules released today include provisions to codify the proposed guidance, which has also been years in the making.

Other provisions

Senior administration officials sought to downplay the effect of the proposed NEPA rules by noting the underlying statute will remain the same.

“If it required NEPA yesterday, it will require NEPA under the new proposal,” an official said when asked how the changes might apply to pipelines like Keystone XL.

And yet the proposed changes could alter the “threshold consideration” that triggers NEPA review. The proposal would exclude projects with minimal federal funding or “participation.”

The Trump plan also proposes restricting an environmental impact statement to two years and an environmental assessment to one.

Neumayr said the average EIS takes 4 ½ years and in some cases longer. Democrats have disputed those timelines. Further, just 1% of all federal actions require an EIS, they argue.

The proposal would also require one agency to take the lead on permitting and require agency officials to “timely resolve disputes that may result in delays.”

In general, the plan calls for environmental documents to be “concise” and “serve their purpose of informing decision makers.”

Both Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, whose agency moved to rewrite coal power plant wastewater limits in separate actions, were at the White House for the announcement.

Reaction

An onslaught of critics have said changes to NEPA rules could be the administration’s most far-reaching environmental rollback, and state attorneys general have mounted a legal challenge to related energy actions as well.

The League of Conservation Voters declared the administration was again trying to “sell out the health and well-being of our children and families to corporate polluters.”

On Capitol Hill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said during a news conference the administration would “no longer enforce NEPA.”

“This means more polluters will be right there, next to the water supply of our children,” she said. “That’s a public health issue. Their denial of climate, they are going to not use the climate issue as anything to do with environmental decisionmaking.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) echoed the sentiment, saying he didn’t need any more proof that the fossil fuel industry had hardwired the Trump administration “but we got it anyway.”

Energy companies, including firms focused on renewable energy development, are welcoming the “clarity” of the proposed NEPA rules, even as debates continue over a clean electricity standard in federal climate policy.

“The lack of clarity in the existing NEPA regulations has led courts to fill the gaps, spurring costly litigation across the sector, and has led to unclear expectations, which has caused significant and unnecessary delays for infrastructure projects across the country,” the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America said in a statement.

Last night, the American Wind Energy Association said NEPA rules have caused “unreasonable and unnecessary costs and long project delays” for land-based and offshore wind energy and transmission development.

Trump has famously attacked the wind energy industry for decades, dating back to his opposition to a Scottish wind turbine near his golf course.

The president today said he won’t stop until “gleaming new infrastructure has made America the envy of the world again.”

When asked whether he thought climate change was a “hoax,” as he once tweeted, he said no. “Nothing’s a hoax about that,” he said.

The president said there’s a book about climate he’s planning to read. He said, “It’s a very serious subject.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nuclear Power for Net-Zero Grids anchors reliable baseload, integrating renewables with grid stability as solar, wind, and battery storage scale. Advanced reactors complement hydropower, curb natural gas reliance, and accelerate deep decarbonization of electricity systems.

Key Points

Uses nuclear baseload and advanced reactors to stabilize power grids and integrate higher shares of variable renewables.

✅ Provides firm, zero-carbon baseload for renewable-heavy grids

✅ Reduces natural gas dependence and peaker emissions

✅ Advanced reactors enhance safety, flexibility, and cost

Declining solar, wind, and battery technology costs are helping to grow the share of renewables in the world’s power mix to the point that governments are pledging net-zero emission electricity generation in two to three decades to fight global warming.

Yet, electricity grids will continue to require stable baseload to incorporate growing shares of renewable energy sources and ensure lights are on even when the sun doesn’t shine, or the wind doesn’t blow. Until battery technology evolves enough—and costs fall far enough—to allow massive storage and deployment of net-zero electricity to the grid, the systems will continue to need power from sources other than solar and wind.

And these will be natural gas and nuclear power, regardless of concerns about emissions from the fossil fuel natural gas and potential disasters at nuclear power facilities such as the ones in Chernobyl or Fukushima.

As natural gas is increasingly considered as just another fossil fuel, nuclear power generation provides carbon-free electricity to the countries that have it, even as debates over nuclear power’s outlook continue worldwide, and could be the key to ensuring a stable power grid capable of taking in growing shares of solar and wind power generation.

The United States, where nuclear energy currently provides more than half of the carbon-free electricity, is supporting the development of advanced nuclear reactors as part of the clean energy strategy.

But Europe, which has set a goal to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, could find itself with growing emissions from the power sector in a decade, as many nuclear reactors are slated for decommissioning and questions remain over whether its aging reactors can bridge the gap. The gap left by lost nuclear power is most easily filled by natural gas-powered electricity generation—and this, if it happens, could undermine the net-zero goals of the European Union (EU) and the bloc’s ambition to be a world leader in the fight against climate change.

U.S. Power Grid Will Need Nuclear For Net-Zero Emissions

A 2020 report from the University of California, Berkeley, said that rapidly declining solar, wind, and storage prices make it entirely feasible for the U.S. to meet 90 percent of its power needs from zero-emission energy sources by 2035 with zero increases in customer costs from today’s levels.

Still, natural gas-fired generation will be needed for 10 percent of America’s power needs. According to the report, in 2035 it would be possible that “during normal periods of generation and demand, wind, solar, and batteries provide 70% of annual generation, while hydropower and nuclear provide 20%.” Even with an exponential rise in renewable power generation, the U.S. grid will need nuclear power and hydropower to be stable with such a large share of solar and wind.

The U.S. Backs Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technology

The U.S. Department of Energy is funding programs of private companies under DOE’s new Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) to showcase next-gen nuclear designs for U.S. deployment.

“Taking leadership in advanced technology is so important to the country’s future because nuclear energy plays such a key role in our clean energy strategy,” U.S. Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette said at the end of December when DOE announced it was financially backing five teams to develop and demonstrate advanced nuclear reactors in the United States.

“All of these projects will put the U.S. on an accelerated timeline to domestically and globally deploy advanced nuclear reactors that will enhance safety and be affordable to construct and operate,” Secretary Brouillette said.

According to Washington DC-based Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a policy organization of the nuclear technologies industry, nuclear energy provides nearly 55 percent of America’s carbon-free electricity. That is more than 2.5 times the amount generated by hydropower, nearly 3 times the amount generated by wind, and more than 12 times the amount generated by solar. Nuclear energy can help the United States to get to the deep carbonization needed to hit climate goals.

Europe Could See Rising Emissions Without Nuclear Power

While the United States is doubling down on efforts to develop advanced and cheaper nuclear reactors, including microreactors and such with new types of technology, Europe could be headed to growing emissions from the electricity sector as nuclear power facilities are scheduled to be decommissioned over the next decade and Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy, according to a Reuters analysis from last month.

In many cases, it will be natural gas that will come to the rescue to power grids to ensure grid stability and enough capacity during peak demand because solar and wind generation is variable and dependent on the weather.

For example, Germany, the biggest economy in Europe, is boosting its renewables targets, but it is also phasing out nuclear by next year, amid a nuclear option debate over climate strategy, while its deadline to phase out coal-fired generation is 2038—more than a decade later compared to phase-out plans in the UK and Italy, for example, where the deadline is the mid-2020s.

The UK, which left the EU last year, included support for nuclear power generation as one of the ten pillars in ‘The Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution’ unveiled in November.

The UK’s National Grid has issued several warnings about tight supply since the fall of 2020, due to low renewable output amid high demand.

“National Grid’s announcement underscores the urgency of investing in new nuclear capacity, to secure reliable, always-on, emissions-free power, alongside other zero-carbon sources. Otherwise, we will continue to burn gas and coal as a fallback and fall short of our net zero ambitions,” Tom Greatrex, Chief Executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, said in response to one of those warnings.

But it’s in the UK that one major nuclear power plant project has notoriously seen a delay of nearly a decade—Hinkley Point C, originally planned in 2007 to help UK households to “cook their 2017 Christmas turkeys”, is now set for start-up in the middle of the 2020s.

Nuclear power development and plant construction is expensive, but it could save the plans for low-carbon emission power generation in many developed economies, including in the United States.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

ATCO Electric administrative penalty underscores an Alberta Utilities Commission probe into a sole-sourced First Nation contract, Jasper transmission line overpayments, and nondisclosure to ratepayers, sparked by a whistleblower and pending settlement approval.

Key Points

A $31M AUC settlement over alleged overpayment, sole-sourcing, and nondisclosure tied to a Jasper transmission line.

✅ $31M administrative penalty; AUC settlement pending approval

✅ Sole-sourced First Nation contract to protect related ATCO deal

✅ Overpayment concealed when seeking recovery from ratepayers

Regulated Alberta utility ATCO Electric has agreed to pay a $31 million administrative penalty after an Alberta Utilities Commission utilities watchdog investigation found it deliberately overpaid a First Nation group for work on a new transmission line, and then failed to disclose the reasons for it when it applied to be reimbursed by ratepayers for the extra cost.

An agreed statement of facts contained in a settlement agreement between ATCO Electric Ltd. and the commission's enforcement staff says the company sole-sourced a contract in 2018 for work that was necessary for an electric transmission line to Jasper, Alta., even as BC Hydro marked a Site C transmission line milestone elsewhere.

The company that won the contract was co-owned by the Simpcw First Nation in Barriere, B.C., while debates over a First Nations electricity line in Ontario underscore related issues, and the agreement says one of the reasons for the sole-sourcing was that another of Calgary-based ATCO's subsidiaries had a prior deal with the First Nation for infrastructure projects that included the provision of work camps on the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project.

The statement of facts says ATCO Electric feared that if it didn't grant the contract to the First Nation group and instead put the work to tender, amid legal pressures such as a treaty rights challenge, the group might back out of its deal with ATCO Structures and Logistics and partner with another, non-ATCO company on the Trans Mountain work.

The agreed statement says ATCO Electric paid several million dollars more than market value for some of the Jasper line work, while a Manitoba-Minnesota line delay was being weighed in another jurisdiction, and staff attempted to conceal the reasons for the overpayment when they sought to recover the extra money from Alberta consumers.

It states the investigation was sparked by a whistleblower, and notes the agreement between the utility commission's enforcement staff and ATCO Electric must still be approved by the Alberta Utilities Commission, a process comparable to hearings that consider oral traditional evidence on interprovincial lines.

The commission must be satisfied the settlement is in the public interest, a consideration often informed by concerns from Site C opponents in other regions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News