FPL uses simulations to prepare for hurricane season

PJM Capacity Auction Price Drop signals PJM Interconnection capacity market shifts, with $50/MW-day clearing, higher renewables and nuclear participation, declining coal, natural gas pressure, and zone impacts in ComEd and EMAAC, amid 21% reserve margins.

Key Points

A decline to $50 per MW-day in PJM capacity prices, shifting resource mix, zonal rates, and reserve margins.

✅ Clearing price fell to $50/MW-day from $140 in 2018

✅ Renewables and nuclear up; coal units down across PJM

✅ Zonal prices: ComEd $68.96, EMAAC $97.86; 21% reserves

Power-plant owners serving the biggest U.S. grid will be paid 64% less next year for being on standby to keep the lights on from New Jersey to Illinois.

Suppliers to PJM Interconnection LLC’s grid, which serves more than 65 million people, will get $50 a megawatt-day to provide capacity for the the year starting June 2022, according to the results of an auction released Wednesday. That’s down sharply from $140 in the previous auction, held in 2018. Analysts had expected the price would fall to about $85.

“Renewables, nuclear and new natural gas generators saw the greatest increases in cleared capacity, while coal units saw the largest decrease,” PJM said in a statement.

The PJM auction is the single most important event for power generators across the eastern U.S., including Calpine Corp., NRG Energy Inc. and Exelon Corp., because it dictates a big chunk of their future revenue. It also plays a pivotal role in shaping the region’s electricity mix, determining how much the region is willing to stick with coal and natural gas plants or replace them with wind and solar even as the aging grid complicates progress nationwide.

The results showed that the capacity price for the Chicago-area zone, known as ComEd, was $68.96 compared with $195.55 in the last auction. The price for the Pennsylvania and New Jersey zone, known as EMAAC, fell to $97.86 percent, from $165.73. All told, 144,477 megawatts cleared, representing a reserve margin of 21%.

Exelon shares fell 0.4% after the results were released. Vistra fell 1.5%. NRG was unchanged.

Blackouts triggered by extreme weather in Texas and California over the last year have reignited a debate over whether other regions should institute capacity systems similar to the one used by PJM, and whether to adopt measures like emergency fuel stock programs in New England as well. The market, which pays generators to be on standby in case extra power is needed, has long been a source of controversy. While it makes the grid more reliable, the system drives up costs for consumers. In the area around Chicago, for instance, these charges total more than $1.7 billion per year, accounting for 20% of customer bills, according to the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition.

In the 2018 auction, PJM contracted supplies that were about 22% in excess of the peak demand projection at the time. This year, the grid is projected to start summer with a reserve margin of about 26%, as COVID-19 demand shifts persist, according to the market monitor -- far higher than the 16% most engineers say is needed to prevent major outages.

“This certainly doesn’t seem fair to ratepayers,” said Ari Peskoe, director of Harvard Law School’s Electricity Law Initiative.

Fossil-Fuel Advantage
Heading into the auction, analysts expected coal and gas plants to have the advantage. Nuclear reactors and renewables, they said, were poised to struggle amid coal and nuclear disruptions nationwide.

That’s because this is the first PJM auction run under a major pricing change imposed by federal regulators during the Trump administration. The new structure creates a price floor for some bidders, effectively hobbling nuclear and renewables that receive state subsidies while making it easier for fossil fuels to compete.

Those rules triggered contentious wrangling between power providers, PJM and federal regulators, delaying the auction for two years. The new system, however, may be short lived. The Biden administration is moving to overhaul the rules in time for the next auction in December.

Also See: Biden Climate Goals to Take Backseat in Biggest U.S. Power Grid

Dominion Energy Inc., one of the biggest U.S. utility owners, pulled out of the market over the rules. The Virginia-based company, which has a goal to have net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, said the new PJM format will “make renewables more expensive” than delivering clean energy through alternative markets.

Illinois, New Jersey and Maryland have also threatened to leave the capacity market unless the new price floor is eliminated, and Connecticut is leading a market overhaul in New England as well. PJM has already launched a process to do it.

PJM is already one of the most fossil-fuel intensive grids, with 60% of its electricity coming from coal and gas. Power plants that bid into the auction rely on it for the bulk of their revenue. That means plants that win contracts have an incentive to continue operating for as long as they can, even amid a supply-chain crisis this summer.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant Restart signals new high-voltage transmission lines to Mariupol, Rosatom grid integration, and IAEA-monitored safety amid occupied territory risks, cooling system shortfalls after the Kakhovka dam collapse, and disputed international law.

Key Points

A Russian plan to reconnect and possibly restart ZNPP via power lines, despite IAEA safety, cooling, and legal risks.

✅ 80 km high-voltage link toward Mariupol confirmed by imagery

✅ IAEA warns of safety risks and militarization at the site

✅ Cooling capacity limited after Kakhovka dam destruction

Russia is actively constructing new power lines to facilitate the restart of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), Europe's largest nuclear facility, which it seized from Ukraine in 2022. Satellite imagery analyzed by Greenpeace indicates the construction of approximately 80 kilometers (50 miles) of high-voltage transmission lines and pylons connecting the plant to the Russian-controlled port city of Mariupol. This development marks the first tangible evidence of Russia's plan to reintegrate the plant into its energy infrastructure.

Strategic Importance of Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant

The ZNPP, located on the eastern bank of the Dnipro River in Enerhodar, was a significant asset in Ukraine's energy sector before its occupation. Prior to the war, the plant was connected to Ukraine's national grid, which later saw resumed electricity exports, via four 750-kilovolt lines, two of which passed through Ukrainian-controlled territory and two through areas under Russian control. The ongoing conflict has damaged these lines, complicating efforts to restore the plant's operations.

In March 2022, Russian forces captured the plant, and by 2023, all six of its reactors had been shut down. Despite this, Russian authorities have expressed intentions to restart the facility. Rosatom, Russia's state nuclear corporation, has identified replacing the power grid as one of the critical steps necessary for resuming operations, even as Ukraine pursues more resilient wind power to bolster its energy mix.

Environmental and Safety Concerns

The construction of new power lines and the potential restart of the ZNPP have raised significant environmental and safety concerns, as the IAEA has warned of nuclear risks from grid attacks in recent assessments. Greenpeace has reported that the plant's cooling system has been compromised due to the destruction of the Kakhovka Reservoir dam in 2023, which previously supplied cooling water to the plant. Currently, the plant relies on wells for cooling, which are insufficient for full-scale operations.

Additionally, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has expressed concerns about the militarization of the plant. Reports indicate that Russian forces have established defensive positions and trenches around the facility, with mines found at ZNPP by UN inspectors, raising the risk of accidents and complicating efforts to ensure the plant's safety.

International Reactions and Legal Implications

Ukraine and the international community have condemned Russia's actions as violations of international law and Ukrainian sovereignty. Ukrainian officials have argued that the construction of power lines and the potential restart of the ZNPP constitute illegal activities in occupied territory. The IAEA has called for a ceasefire to allow for necessary safety improvements and to facilitate inspections of the plant, as a possible agreement on power plant attacks could underpin de-escalation efforts.

The United States has also expressed concerns, with President Donald Trump reportedly proposing the inclusion of the ZNPP in peace negotiations, which sparked controversy among Ukrainian and international observers, even suggesting the possibility of transferring control to American companies. However, Russia has rejected such proposals, reaffirming its intention to maintain control over the facility.

The construction of new power lines to the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant signifies Russia's commitment to reintegrating the facility into its energy infrastructure. However, this move raises significant environmental, safety, and legal concerns, and a proposal to control Ukraine's nuclear plants remains controversial among stakeholders. The international community continues to monitor the situation closely, urging for adherence to international laws and standards to prevent potential nuclear risks.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

CPUC Exit Fee Increase for CCAs adjusts the PCIA, affecting utilities, San Diego ratepayers, renewable energy procurement, customer equity, and cost allocation, while providing regulatory certainty for Community Choice Aggregation programs and clean energy goals.

Key Points

A CPUC-approved change raising PCIA exit fees paid by CCAs to utilities, balancing cost shifts and customer equity.

✅ PCIA rises from about 2.5c to roughly 4.25c per kWh in San Diego

✅ Aims to reduce cost shifts and protect non-CCA customers

✅ Offers regulatory certainty for CCA launches and clean energy goals

The California Public Utilities Commission approved an increase on the exit fees charged to customers who take part in Community Choice Aggregation -- government-run alternatives to traditional utilities like San Diego Gas & Electric.

After reviewing two competing exit fee proposals, all five commissioners voted Thursday in favor of an adjustment that many CCA advocates predicted could hamper the growth of the community choice movement.

But minutes after the vote was announced, one of the leading voices in favor of the city San Diego establishing its own CCA said the decision was good news because it provides some regulatory certainty.

"For us in San Diego, it's a green light to move forward with community choice," said Nicole Capretz, executive director of the Climate Action Campaign. "For us, it's let's go, let's launch and let's give families a choice. We no longer have to wait."

Under the CCA model, utilities still maintain transmission and distribution lines (poles and wires, etc.) and handle customer billing. But officials in a given local government entity make the final decisions about what kind of power sources are purchased.

Once a CCA is formed, its customers must pay an exit fee -- called a Power Charge Indifference Adjustment -- to the legacy utility serving that particular region. The fee is included in customers' monthly bills.

The fee is required to offset the costs of the investments utilities made over the years for things like natural gas power plants, renewable energy facilities and other infrastructure.

Utilities argue if the exit fee is set too low, it does not fairly compensate them for their investments; if it's too high, CCAs complain it reduces the financial incentive for their potential customers.

The Public Utilities Commission chose to adopt a proposal that some said was more favorable to utilities, leading to complaints from CCA boosters.

"We see this will really throw sand in the gears in our ability to do things that can move us toward (climate change) goals," Jim Parks, staff member of Valley Clean Energy, a CCA based in Davis, said before the vote.

Commissioner Carla Peterman, who authored the proposal that passed, said she supports CCAs but stressed the commission has a "legal obligation" to make sure increased costs are not shouldered by "customers who do not, or cannot, join a CCA. Today's proposal ensures a more level playing field between customers."

As for what the vote means for the exit fee in San Diego, Peterman's office earlier in the week estimated the charge would rise from 2.5 cents a kilowatt-hour to about 4.25 cents.

The Clear the Air Coaltion, a San Diego County group critical of CCAs, said the newly established exit fee -- which goes into effect starting next year -- is "a step in the direction."

But the group, which includes the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, the San Diego County Taxpayers Association and lobbyists for Sempra Energy (the parent company of SDG&E), repeated concerns it has brought up before.

"If the city of San Diego decides to get into the energy business this decision means ratepayers in National City, Chula Vista, Carlsbad, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, El Cajon and all other neighboring communities would see higher energy bills, and San Diego taxpayers would be faced with mounting debt," coalition spokesman Tony Manolatos said in an email.

CCA supporters say community choice is critical in ensuring San Diego meets the pledge made by Mayor Kevin Faulconer to adopt the city's Climate Action Plan, mandating 100 percent of the city's electricity needs must come from renewable sources by 2035.

Now attention turns to Faulconer, who promised to make a decision on bringing a CCA proposal to the San Diego City Council only after the utilities commission made its decision.

A Faulconer spokesman said Thursday afternoon that the vote "provides the clarity we've been waiting for to move forward" but did not offer a specific time table.

"We're on schedule to reach Mayor Faulconer's goal of choosing a pathway that achieves our renewable energy goals while also protecting ratepayers, and the mayor looks forward to making his recommendation in the next few weeks," said Craig Gustafson, a Faulconer spokesman, in an email.

A feasibility study released last year predicted a CCA in San Diego has the potential to deliver cheaper rates over time than SDG&E's current service, while providing as much as 50 percent renewable energy by 2023 and 80 percent by 2027.

"The city has already figured out we are still capable of launching a program, having competitive, affordable rates and finally offering families a choice as to who their energy provider is," said Capretz, who helped draft an initial blueprint of the climate plan as a city staffer.

SDG&E has come to the city with a counterproposal that offers 100 percent renewables by 2035.

Thus far, the utility has produced a rough outline for a "tariff" program that would charge ratepayers the cost of delivering more clean sources of energy over time.

Some council members have expressed frustration more specifics have not been sketched out.

SDG&E officials said they will take the new exit fee into account as they go forward with their counterproposal to the city council.

Speaking in general about the utility commission's decision, SDG&E spokeswoman Helen Gao called it "a victory for our customers, as it minimizes the cost shifts that they have been burdened with under the existing fee formula.

"As commissioners noted in rendering their decision, reforming the (exit fee) addresses a customer-to-customer equity issue and has nothing to do with increasing profits for investor-owned utilities," Gao said in an email.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

Vogtle Units 3 and 4 are Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors under construction in Waynesboro, Georgia, led by Southern Nuclear, Georgia Power, and Bechtel, adding 2,234 MWe of carbon-free baseload power with DOE loan guarantees.

Key Points

Vogtle Units 3 and 4 are AP1000 reactors in Georgia delivering 2,234 MWe of low-carbon baseload electricity.

✅ Each unit: Westinghouse AP1000, 1,117 MWe capacity.

✅ Managed by Southern Nuclear, built by Bechtel.

✅ DOE loan guarantees support financing and risk.

Construction is ongoing for two new nuclear reactors, Units 3 and 4, at Georgia Power's Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Waynesboro, Ga. the first new nuclear reactors to be constructed in the United Stated in 30 years, mirroring a new U.S. reactor startup that will provide electricity to more than 500,000 homes and businesses once operational.

Construction on Unit 3 started in March 2013 with an expected completion date of November 2021. For Unit 4, work began in November 2013 with a targeted delivery date of November 2022. Each unit houses a Westinghouse AP1000 (Advanced Passive) nuclear reactor that can generate about 1,117 megawatts (MWe). The reactor pressure vessels and steam generators are from Doosan, a South Korean firm.

The pouring of concrete was delayed to 2013 due to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuing a license amendment which permitted the use of higher-strength concrete for the foundations of the reactors, eliminating the need to make additional modifications to reinforcing steel bar.

The work is occurring in the middle of an operational nuclear facility, and the construction area contains many cranes and storage areas for the prefabricated parts being installed. Space also is needed for various trucks making deliveries, especially concrete.

The reactor buildings, circular in shape, are several hundred feet apart from one another and each one has an annex building and a turbine island structure. The estimated total price for the project is expected in the $18.7 billion range. Bechtel Corporation, which built Units 1 and 2, was brought in January 2017 to take over the construction that is being overseen by Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNOC), which operates the plant.

The project will require the equivalent of 3,375 miles of sidewalk; the towers for Units 3 and 4 are 60 stories high and have two million pound CA modules; the office space for both units is 300,000 sq. ft.; and there are more than 8,000 construction workers over 30 percent being military veterans. The new reactors will create 800 permanent jobs.

Southern Nuclear and Georgia Power took over management of the construction project in 2017 after Westinghouse's Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The plant, built in the late 1980s with Unit 1 becoming operational in 1987 and Unit 2 in 1989, is jointly owned by Georgia Power (45.7 percent), Oglethorpe Power Corporation (30 percent), Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (22.7 percent) and Dalton Utilities (1.6 percent).

"Significant progress has been made on the construction of Vogtle 3 and 4 since the transition to Southern Nuclear following the Westinghouse bankruptcy," said Paul Bowers, Chairman, President and CEO of Georgia Power. "While there will always be challenges in building the first new nuclear units in this country in more than 30 years, we remain focused on reducing project risk and maintaining the current project momentum in order to provide our customers with a new carbon-free energy source that will put downward pressure on rates for 60 to 80 years."

The Vogtle and Hatch nuclear plants currently provide more than 20 percent of Georgia's annual electricity needs. Vogtle will be the only four-unit nuclear facility in the country. The energy is needed to meet the rising demand for electricity as the state expects to have more than four million new residents by 2030.

The plant's expansion is the largest ongoing construction project in Georgia and one of the largest in the state's history, while comparable refurbishments such as the Bruce reactor overhaul progress in Canada. Last March an agreement was signed to secure approximately $1.67 billion in additional Department of Energy loan guarantees. Georgia Power previously secured loan guarantees of $3.46 billion.

The signing highlighted the placement of the top of the containment vessel for Unit 3, echoing the Hinkley Point C roof lift seen in the U.K., which signified that all modules and large components had been placed inside it. The containment vessel is a high-integrity steel structure that houses critical plant components. The top head is 130 ft. in diameter, 37 ft. tall, and weighs nearly 1.5 million lbs. It is comprised of 58 large plates, welded together with each more than 1.5 in. thick.

"From the very beginning, public and private partners have stood with us," said Southern Company Chairman, President and CEO Tom Fanning. "Everyone involved in the project remains focused on sustaining our momentum."

Bechtel has completed more than 80 percent of the project, and the major milestones for 2019 have been met, aligning with global nuclear milestones reported across the industry, including setting the Unit 4 pressurizer inside the containment vessel last February, which will provide pressure control inside the reactor coolant system. More specialized construction workers, including craft labor, have been hired via the addition of approximately 300 pipefitters and 350 electricians since November 2018. Another 500 to 1,000 craft workers have been more recently brought in.

A key accomplishment occurred last December when 1,300 cu. yds. of concrete were poured inside the Unit 4 containment vessel during a 21-hour operation that involved more than 100 workers and more than 120 truckloads of concrete. In 2018 alone, more than 23,000 cu. yds. of concrete were poured part of the nearly 600,000 cu. yds. placed since construction started, and the installation of more than 16,200 yds. of piping.

Progress also has been solid for Unit 3. Last January the integrated head package (IHP) was set inside the containment vessel. The IHP, weighing 475,000 lbs. and standing 48 ft. tall, combines several separate components in one assembly and allows the rapid removal of the reactor vessel head during a refueling outage. One month earlier, the placement of the third and final ring for containment vessel, and the placement of the fourth and final reactor coolant pump (RCP, 375,000 lbs.), were executed.

"Weighing just under 2 million pounds, approximately 38 feet high and with a diameter of 130 feet, the ring is the fourth of five sections that make up the containment vessel," stated a Georgia Power press release. "The RCPs are mounted to the steam generator and serve a critical part of the reactor coolant system, circulating water from the steam generator to the reactor vessel, allowing sufficient heat transfer for safe plant operation. In the same month, the Unit 3 shield building with additional double-decker panels, was placed.

According to a construction update from Georgia Power, a total of eight six-panel sections have been placed, with each one measuring 20 ft. tall and 114 ft. wide, weighing up to 300,000 lbs. To date, more than half of the shield building panels have been placed for Unit 3. The shield building panels, fabricated in Newport News, Va., provide structural support to the containment cooling water supply and protect the containment vessel, which houses the reactor vessel.

Building the reactors is challenging due to the design, reflecting lessons from advanced reactors now being deployed. Unit 3 will have 157 fuel assemblies, with each being a little over 14 ft. long. They are crucial to fuelling the reactor, and once the initial fueling is completed, nearly one-third of the fuel assemblies will be replaced for each re-fuelling operation. In addition to the Unit 3 containment top, placement crews installed three low-pressure turbine rotors and the generator rotor inside the unit's turbine building.

Last November, major systems testing got underway at Unit 3 as the site continues to transition from construction toward system operations. The Open Vessel Testing will demonstrate how water flows from the key safety systems into the reactor vessel ensuring the paths are not blocked or constricted.

"This is a significant step on our path towards operations," said Glen Chick, Vogtle 3 & 4 construction executive vice president. "[This] will prepare the unit for cold hydro testing and hot functional testing next year both critical tests required ahead of initial fuel load."

It also confirms that the pumps, motors, valves, pipes and other components function as designed, a reminder of how issues like the South Carolina plant leak can disrupt operations when systems falter.

"It follows the Integrated Flush process, which began in August, to push water through system piping and mechanical components that feed into the Unit 3 reactor vessel and reactor coolant loops for the first time," stated a press release. "Significant progress continues ... including the placement of the final reinforced concrete portion of the Unit 4 shield building. The 148-cubic yard placement took eight hours to complete and, once cured, allows for the placement of the first course of double-decker panels. Also, the upper inner casing for the Unit 3 high-pressure turbine has been placed, signifying the completion of the centerline alignment, which will mean minimal vibration and less stress on the rotors during operations, resulting in more efficient power generation."

The turbine rotors, each weighing approximately 200 tons and rotating at 1,800 revolutions per-minute, pass steam through the turbine blades to power the generator.

The placement of the middle containment vessel ring for Unit 4 was completed in early July. This required several cranes to work in tandem as the 51-ft. tall ring weighed 2.4 million lbs. and had dozens of individual steel plates that were fabricated on site.

A key part of the construction progress was made in late July with the order of the first nuclear fuel load for Unit 3, which consists of 157 fuel assemblies with each measuring 14 ft. tall.

On May 7, Unit 3 was energized (permanently powered), which was essential to perform the testing for the unit. Prior to this, the plant equipment had been running on temporary construction power.

"[This] is a major first step in transitioning the project from construction toward system operations," Chick said.

Construction of the north side of the Unit 3 Auxiliary Building (AB) has progressed with both the floor and roof modules being set. Substantial work also occurred on the steel and concrete that forms the remaining walls and the north AB roof at elevation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News