LIPA riles critics by hiring an outside consultant

China Coal-Fired Power Consolidation targets capacity cuts through mergers, SASAC-led restructuring, debt reduction, asset optimization, and retiring inefficient plants across state-owned utilities to improve efficiency, stabilize liabilities, and align with energy transition policies.

Key Points

A SASAC-driven plan merging utility assets to cut coal capacity, reduce debt, and retire outdated, loss-making plants.

✅ Merge five central utilities' coal assets to streamline operations

✅ Target 25-33% capacity cuts and >50% loss reduction by 2021

✅ Prioritize debt-ridden regions: Gansu, Shaanxi, Xinjiang, Qinghai, Ningxia

China plans to slash coal-fired power capacity at its five biggest utilities by as much as a third in two years by merging their assets, amid broader power-sector strains that reverberate globally, according to a document seen by Reuters and four sources with knowledge of the matter.

The move to shed older and less-efficient capacity is being driven by pressure to cut heavy debt levels at the utilities. China, is, however, building more coal-fired power plants and approving dozens of new mines to bolster a slowing economy, even as recent power cuts highlight grid imbalances.

The five utilities, which are controlled by the central government, accounted for around 44% of China’s total coal-fired power capacity at the end of 2018, a share likely to be tested by rising electrification goals, with electricity to meet 60% by 2060 according to industry forecasts.

“(The utilities) will strive to reduce coal-fired power capacity by one quarter to one third ...cutting total losses by more than 50% from the current level to achieve a significant decline in debt-to-asset ratios by the end of 2021,” the document said.

The plan, initiated and overseen by the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council (SASAC), follows heavy losses at some of the utilities, amid a pandemic-era demand drop that hit industrial consumption.

Some of their coal-fired power stations have filed for bankruptcy in recent years as Beijing promotes the use of renewable energy and advances its nuclear program while opening up the state-controlled power market.

The SASAC did not immediately respond to a fax seeking comment and the sources declined to be identified as they were not authorised to speak to the media.

The utilities - China Huaneng Group Co, China Datang Corp, China Huadian Corp, State Power Investment Corp and China Energy Group - did not respond to faxes requesting comment.

Together, they had 474 coal-fired power plants with combined power generation capacity of 520 gigawatts (GW) at the end of last year.

Their coal-fired power assets came to 1.5 trillion yuan ($213 billion) while total coal-fired power liabilities were 1.1 trillion yuan, the document said.

The document was seen by two people at two of the utilities and was also verified by a source at SASAC and a government researcher.

It was not clear when the document was published but it said the merging and elimination of outdated capacity would start from 2019 and be achieved within three years, aiming to improve the efficiency and operations at the companies, reflecting a broader electricity sector mystery that policymakers are trying to resolve.

Utilities with debt-ridden operations in the northwestern regions of Gansu, Shaanxi, Xinjiang, Qinghai and Ningxia would be the first to carry out the plan, it said, even as India ration coal supplies during demand surges.

The government researcher said the SASAC has been researching possible consolidation in the coal-fired power sector since 2017, but added: “It’s easier said than done.”

“No one is willing to hand in their high quality assets and there is no point in merging the bad assets,” the government researcher said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

DOE Grid Resilience Pricing Rule faces FERC review as energy groups challenge an expedited timeline to reward coal and nuclear for reliability in wholesale markets, impacting natural gas, renewables, baseload economics, and grid pricing.

Key Points

A DOE proposal directing FERC to compensate coal and nuclear plants for reliability attributes in wholesale markets.

✅ Industry coalition seeks normal FERC timeline and review

✅ Impacts wholesale pricing, baseload economics, reliability

✅ Request for 90-day comments and reply period

A coalition of 11 industry groups is pushing back on Energy Secretary Rick Perry's efforts to quickly implement a major change to the way electric power is priced in the United States.

The Energy Department on Friday proposed a rule that stands to bolster coal and nuclear power plants by forcing the regional markets that set electricity prices to compensate them for the reliability they provide. Perry asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to consider and finalize the rule within 60 days, including a 45-day period during which stakeholders can issue comments.

On Monday, groups representing petroleum, natural gas, electric power and renewable energy interests including ACORE urged FERC to reject the expedited process, as well as the Department of Energy's request that the regulatory commission consider putting in place an interim rule.

They say the time frame is "aggressive" and the department didn't provide adequate justification for fast-tracking a process that could have huge impacts on wholesale electricity markets.

"This is one of the most significant proposed rules in decades related to the energy industry and, if finalized, would unquestionably have significant ramifications for wholesale markets under the Commission's jurisdiction," the groups said in the motion filed with FERC.

"The Energy Industry Associations urge the Commission to reject the proposed unreasonable timelines and instead proceed in a manner that would afford meaningful consideration of public comments and be consistent with the normal deliberative process that it typically affords such major undertakings," they said.

The groups are requesting a 90-day comment period, as well as another period for reply comments. FERC, which has authority to regulate interstate transmission and sale of electricity and natural gas, is not required to decide in favor of the rule but, amid a recent FERC decision that drew industry criticism, must consider it.

Expediting the process or imposing an interim rule is generally limited to emergencies, the groups said. The Energy Department's letter to FERC does not even attempt to establish that an immediate threat to U.S. electricity reliability exists, they allege.

• A coalition of energy industry groups asked regulators to reject a rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Energy on Friday.
• The rule would bolster coal-fired and nuclear power plants by requiring wholesale markets to compensate them for certain attributes.
• The groups say the Energy Department proposed "unreasonable timelines" for stakeholders to offer feedback on a rule with "significant ramifications for wholesale markets."

The groups cite a recent Energy Department report on grid reliability that concluded: "reliability is adequate today despite the retirement of 11 percent of the generating capacity available in 2002, as significant additions from natural gas, wind, and solar have come online since then."

The Department of Energy did not return a request for comment.

The Energy Department's rule marks a flashpoint in the battle between natural gas-fired and renewable energy and so-called baseload power sources like coal and nuclear.

Separately, coal and business groups have supported the EPA in litigation over the Affordable Clean Energy rule, as documented in legal challenges brought during the rule's defense.

Gas, wind and solar power have eaten into coal and nuclear's share of U.S. electric power generation in recent years. That is thanks to a boom in U.S. gas production that has pushed down prices, the rapid adoption of subsidized renewable energy and President Barack Obama's efforts to mitigate emissions from power plants, which the Trump administration has sought to replace with a tune-up as policies shift.

Electric power is priced in deregulated, wholesale markets in many parts of the country. Utilities typically draw on the cheapest power sources first.

Some worry that the retirement of coal-fired and nuclear power plants undermines the nation's ability to reliably and affordably deliver electricity to households and businesses.

President Donald Trump has vowed to revive the ailing coal industry, declaring an end to the 'war on coal' in public remarks. Trump, Perry and other administration officials reject the consensus among climate scientists that carbon emissions from sources like coal-fired plants are the primary cause of global warming.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Eviation Collapse underscores electric aviation headwinds, from Alice aircraft battery limits to FAA/EASA certification hurdles, funding shortfalls, and leadership instability, reshaping sustainability roadmaps for regional airliners and future zero-emission flight.

Key Points

Eviation Collapse is the 2025 shutdown of Eviation Aircraft, revealing battery, certification, and funding hurdles.

✅ Battery energy density limits curtailed Alice's range

✅ FAA/EASA certification timelines delayed commercialization

✅ Funding gaps and leadership churn undermined execution

The electric aviation industry was poised to revolutionize the skies through an aviation revolution with startups like Eviation Aircraft leading the charge to bring environmentally friendly, cost-efficient electric airplanes into commercial use. However, in a shocking turn of events, Eviation has faced an abrupt collapse, signaling challenges that may impact the future of electric flight.

Eviation’s Vision and Early Promise

Founded in 2015, Eviation was an ambitious electric airplane startup with the goal of changing the way the world thinks about aviation. The company’s flagship product, the Alice aircraft, was designed to be an all-electric regional airliner capable of carrying up to 9 passengers. With a focus on sustainability, reduced operating costs, and a quieter flight experience, Alice attracted attention as one of the most promising electric aircraft in development.

Eviation’s aircraft was aimed at replacing small, inefficient, and environmentally damaging regional aircraft, reducing emissions in the aviation industry. The startup’s vision was bold: to create an airplane that could offer all the benefits of electric power – lower operating costs, less noise, and a smaller environmental footprint. Their goal was not only to attract major airlines but also to pave the way for a more sustainable future in aviation.

The company’s early success was driven by substantial investments and partnerships. It garnered attention from aviation giants and venture capitalists alike, drawing support for its innovative technology. In fact, in 2019, Eviation secured a deal with the Israeli airline, El Al, for several aircraft, a deal that seemed to promise a bright future for the company.

Challenges in the Electric Aviation Industry

Despite its early successes and strong backing, Eviation faced considerable challenges that eventually contributed to its downfall. The electric aviation sector, as promising as it seemed, has always been riddled with hurdles – from battery technology to regulatory approvals, and compounded by Europe’s EV slump that dampened clean-transport sentiment, the path to producing commercially viable electric airplanes has proven more difficult than initially anticipated.

The first major issue Eviation encountered was the slow development of battery technology. While electric car companies like Tesla were able to scale their operations quickly during the electric vehicle boom due to advancements in battery efficiency, aviation technology faced a more significant obstacle. The energy density required for a plane to fly long distances with sufficient payload was far greater than what existing battery technology could offer. This limitation severely impacted the range of the Alice aircraft, preventing it from meeting the expectations set by its creators.

Another challenge was the lengthy regulatory approval process for electric aircraft. Aviation is one of the most regulated industries in the world, and getting a new aircraft certified for flight takes time and rigorous testing. Although Eviation’s Alice was touted as an innovative leap in aviation technology, the company struggled to navigate the complex process of meeting the safety and operational standards required by aviation authorities, such as the FAA and EASA.

Financial Difficulties and Leadership Changes

As challenges mounted, Eviation’s financial situation became increasingly precarious. The company struggled to secure additional funding to continue its development and scale operations. Investors, once eager to back the promising startup, grew wary as timelines stretched and costs climbed, amid a U.S. EV market share dip in early 2024, tempering enthusiasm. With the electric aviation market still in its early stages, Eviation faced stiff competition from more established players, including large aircraft manufacturers like Boeing and Airbus, who also began to invest heavily in electric and hybrid-electric aircraft technologies.

Leadership instability also played a role in Eviation’s collapse. The company went through several executive changes over a short period, and management’s inability to solidify a clear vision for the future raised concerns among stakeholders. The lack of consistent leadership hindered the company’s ability to make decisions quickly and efficiently, further exacerbating its financial challenges.

The Sudden Collapse

In 2025, Eviation made the difficult decision to shut down its operations. The company announced the closure after failing to secure enough funding to continue its development and meet its ambitious production goals. The sudden collapse of Eviation sent shockwaves through the electric aviation sector, where many had placed their hopes on the startup’s innovative approach to electric flight.

The failure of Eviation has left many questioning the future of electric aviation. While the industry is still in its infancy, Eviation’s downfall serves as a cautionary tale about the challenges of bringing cutting-edge technology to the skies. The ambitious vision of a sustainable, electric future in aviation may still be achievable, but the path to success will require overcoming significant technological, regulatory, and financial obstacles.

What’s Next for Electric Aviation?

Despite Eviation’s collapse, the electric aviation sector is far from dead. Other companies, such as Joby Aviation, Vertical Aerospace, and Ampaire, are continuing to develop electric and hybrid-electric aircraft, building on milestones like Canada’s first commercial electric flight that signal ongoing demand for green alternatives to traditional aviation.

Moreover, major aircraft manufacturers are doubling down on their own electric aircraft projects. Boeing, for example, has launched several initiatives aimed at reducing carbon emissions in aviation, while Harbour Air’s point-to-point e-seaplane flight showcases near-term regional progress, and Airbus is testing a hybrid-electric airliner prototype. The collapse of Eviation may slow down progress, but it is unlikely to derail the broader movement toward electric flight entirely.

The lessons learned from Eviation’s failure will undoubtedly inform the future of the electric aviation sector. Innovation, perseverance, and a steady stream of investment will be critical for the success of future electric aircraft startups, as exemplified by Harbour Air’s research-driven electric aircraft efforts that highlight the value of sustained R&D. While the dream of electric planes may have suffered a setback, the long-term vision of cleaner, more sustainable aviation is still alive.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Great Northern Transmission Line delivers 250 MW of carbon-free hydropower from Manitoba Hydro, strengthening Midwest grid reliability, enabling wind storage balancing, and advancing Minnesota Power's EnergyForward strategy for cleaner, renewable energy across the region.

Key Points

A 500 kV cross-border line delivering 250 MW of carbon-free hydropower, strengthening reliability and enabling renewables.

✅ 500 kV, 224-mile line from Manitoba to Minnesota

✅ Delivers 250 MW hydropower via ALLETE-Minnesota Power

✅ Enables wind storage and grid balancing with Manitoba Hydro

Minnesota Power, a utility division of ALLETE Inc. (NYSE:ALE), has energized its Great Northern Transmission Line, bringing online an innovative delivery and storage system for renewable energy that spans two states and one Canadian province, similar to the Maritime Link project in Atlantic Canada.

The 500 kV line is now delivering 250 megawatts of carbon-free hydropower from Manitoba, Canada, to Minnesota Power customers.

Minnesota Power completed the Great Northern Transmission Line (GNTL) in February 2020, ahead of schedule and under budget. The 224-mile line runs from the Canadian border in Roseau County to a substation near Grand Rapids, Minnesota. It consists of 800 tower structures which were fabricated in the United States and used 10,000 tons of North American steel. About 2,200 miles of wire were required to install the line's conductors. The GNTL also is contributing significant property tax revenue to local communities along the route.

"This is such an incredible achievement for Minnesota Power, ALLETE, and our region, and is the culmination of a decade-long vision brought to life by our talented and dedicated employees," said ALLETE President and CEO Bethany Owen. "The GNTL will help Minnesota Power to provide our customers with 50 percent renewable energy less than a year from now. As part of our EnergyForward strategy, it also strengthens the grid across the Midwest and in Canada, enhancing reliability for all of our customers."

With the GNTL energized and connected to Manitoba Hydro's recently completed Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project at the border, the companies now have a unique "wind storage" mechanism that quickly balances energy supply and demand in Minnesota and Manitoba, and enables a larger role for renewables in the North American energy grid.

The GNTL and its delivery of carbon-free hydropower are important components of Minnesota Power's EnergyForward strategy to transition away from coal and add renewable power sources while maintaining reliable and affordable service for customers, echoing interties like the Maritime Link that facilitate regional power flows. It also is part of a broader ALLETE strategy to advance and invest in critical regional transmission and distribution infrastructure, such as the TransWest Express transmission project, to ensure grid integrity and enable cleaner energy to reduce carbon emissions.

"The seed for this renewable energy initiative was planted in 2008 when Minnesota Power proposed purchasing 250 megawatts of hydropower from Manitoba Hydro. Beyond the transmission line, it also included a creative asset swap to move wind power from North Dakota to Minnesota, innovative power purchase agreements, and a remarkable advocacy process to find an acceptable route for the GNTL," said ALLETE Executive Chairman Al Hodnik. "It marries wind and water in a unique connection that will help transform the energy landscape of North America and reduce carbon emissions related to the existential threat of climate change."

Minnesota Power and Manitoba Hydro, a provincial Crown Corporation, coordinated on the project from the beginning, navigating National Energy Board reviews along the way. It is based on the companies' shared values of integrity, environmental stewardship and community engagement.

"The completion of Minnesota Power's Great Northern Transmission Line and our Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project is a testament to the creativity, perseverance, cooperation and skills of hundreds of people over so many years on both sides of the border," said Jay Grewal, president and CEO of Manitoba Hydro. "Perhaps even more importantly, it is a testament to the wonderful, longstanding relationship between our two companies and two countries. It shows just how much we can accomplish when we all work together toward a common goal."

Minnesota Power engaged federal, state and local agencies; the sovereign Red Lake Nation and other tribes, reflecting First Nations involvement in major transmission planning; and landowners along the proposed routes beginning in 2012. Through 75 voluntary meetings and other outreach forums, a preferred route was selected with strong support from stakeholders that was approved by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in April 2016.

A four-year state and federal regulatory process culminated in late 2016 when the federal Department of Energy approved a Presidential Permit for the GNTL, similar to the New England Clean Power Link process, needed because of the international border crossing. Construction of the line began in early 2017.

"A robust stakeholder process is essential to the success of any project, but especially when building a project of this scope," Owen said. "We appreciated the early engagement and support from stakeholders, local communities and tribes, agencies and regulators through the many approval milestones to the completion of the GNTL."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News