Google invests in North Dakota wind farms

Three Mile Island Nuclear Debate spotlights subsidies, carbon pricing, wholesale power markets, grid reliability, and zero-emissions goals as Pennsylvania weighs keeping Exelon's reactor open amid natural gas competition and flat electricity demand.

Key Points

Debate over subsidies, carbon pricing, and grid reliability shaping Three Mile Island's zero-emissions future.

✅ Zero emissions credits vs market integrity

✅ Carbon pricing to value clean baseload power

✅ Closure risks jobs, tax revenue, and reliability

Three Mile Island is at the center of a new conversation about the future of nuclear energy in the United States nearly 40 years after a partial meltdown at the Central Pennsylvania plant sparked a national debate about the safety of nuclear power.

The site is slated to close in just two years, a closure plan Exelon has signaled, unless Pennsylvania or a regional power transmission operator delivers some form of financial relief, says Exelon, the Chicago-based power company that operates the plant.

That has drawn the Keystone State into a growing debate: whether to let struggling nuclear plants shut down if they cannot compete in the regional wholesale markets where energy is bought and sold, or adopt measures to keep them in the business of generating power without greenhouse gas emissions.

""The old compromise — that in order to have a reliable, affordable electric system you had to deal with a significant amount of air pollution — is a compromise our new customers today don't want to hear about.""
-Joseph Dominguez, Exelon executive vice president
Nuclear power plants produce about two-thirds of the country's zero-emissions electricity, a role many view as essential to net-zero emissions goals for the grid.

The debate is playing out as some regions consider putting a price on planet-warming carbon emissions produced by some power generators, which would raise their costs and make nuclear plants like Three Mile Island more viable, and developments such as Europe's nuclear losses highlight broader energy security concerns.

States that allow nuclear facilities to close need to think carefully because once a reactor is powered down, there's no turning back, said Jake Smeltz, chief of staff for Pennsylvania State Sen. Ryan Aument, who chairs the state's Nuclear Energy Caucus.

"If we wave goodbye to a nuclear station, it's a permanent goodbye because we don't mothball them. We decommission them," he told CNBC.

Three Mile Island's closure would eliminate more than 800 megawatts of electricity output. That's roughly 10 percent of Pennsylvania's zero-emissions energy generation, by Exelon's calculation. Replacing that with fossil fuel-fired power would be like putting roughly 10 million cars on the road, it estimates.

A closure would also shed about 650 well-paying jobs, putting the just transition challenge in focus for local workers and communities, tied to about $60 million in wages per year. Dauphin County and Londonderry Township, a rural area on the Susquehanna River where the plant is based, stand to lose $1 million in annual tax revenue that funds schools and municipalities. The 1,000 to 1,500 workers who pack local hotels, stores and restaurants every two years for plant maintenance would stop visiting.

Pennsylvanians and lawmakers must now decide whether these considerations warrant throwing Exelon a lifeline. It's a tough sell in the nation's second-largest natural gas-producing state, which already generates more energy than it uses. And time is running out to reach a short-term solution.

"What's meaningful to us is something where we could see the results before we turn in the keys, and we turn in the keys the third quarter of '19," said Joseph Dominguez, Exelon's executive vice president for governmental and regulatory affairs and public policy.

The end of the nuclear age?

The problem for Three Mile Island is the same one facing many of the nation's 60 nuclear plants: They are too expensive to operate.

Financial pressure on these facilities is mounting as power demand remains stagnant due to improved energy efficiency, prices remain low for natural gas-fired generation and costs continue to fall for wind and solar power.

Three Mile Island is something of a special case: The 1979 incident left only one of its two reactors operational, but it still employs about as many people as a plant with two reactors, making it less efficient. In the last three regional auctions, when power generators lock in buyers for their future energy generation, no one bought power from Three Mile Island.

But even dual-reactor plants are facing existential threats. FirstEnergy Corp's Beaver Valley will sell or close its nuclear plant near the Pennsylvania-Ohio border next year as it exits the competitive power-generation business, and facilities like Ohio's Davis-Besse illustrate what's at stake for the region.

Five nuclear power plants have shuttered across the country since 2013. Another six have plans to shut down, and four of those would close well ahead of schedule. An analysis by energy research firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance found that more than half the nation's nuclear plants are facing some form of financial stress.

Today's regional energy markets, engineered to produce energy at the lowest cost to consumers, do not take into account that nuclear power generates so much zero-emission electricity. But Dominguez, the Exelon vice president, said that's out of step with a world increasingly concerned about climate change.

"What we see is increasingly our customers are interested in getting electricity from zero air pollution sources," Dominguez said. "The old compromise — that in order to have a reliable, affordable electric system you had to deal with a significant amount of air pollution — is a compromise our new customers today don't want to hear about."

Strange bedfellows

Faced with the prospect of nuclear plant closures, Chicago and New York have both allowed nuclear reactors to qualify for subsidies called zero emissions credits. Exelon lobbied for the credits, which will benefit some of its nuclear plants in those states.

Even though the plants produce nuclear waste, some environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council supported these plans. That's because they were part of broader packages that promote wind and solar power, and the credits for nuclear are not open-ended. They essentially provide a bridge that keeps zero-emissions power from nuclear reactors on the grid as renewable energy becomes more viable.

Lawmakers in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Connecticut are currently exploring similar options. Jake Smeltz, chief of staff to state Sen. Aument, said legislation could surface in Pennsylvania as soon as this fall. The challenge is to get people to consider the attributes of the sources of their electricity beyond just cost, according to Smeltz.

"Are the plants worth essentially saving? That's a social choice. Do they provide us with something that has benefits beyond the electrons they make? That's the debate that's been happening in other states, and those states say yes," he said.

Subsidies face opposition from anti-nuclear energy groups like Three Mile Island Alert, as well as natural gas trade groups and power producers who compete against Exelon by operating coal and natural gas plants.

"Where we disagree is to have an out-of-market subsidy for one specific company, for a technology that is now proven and mature in our view, at the expense of consumers and the integrity of competitive markets," NRG Energy Mauricio Gutierrez told analysts during a conference call this month.

Smeltz notes that power producers like NRG would fill in the void left by nuclear plants as they continue to shut down.

"The question that I think folks need to answer is are these programs a bailout or is the opposition to the program a payout? Because at the end of the day someone is going to make money. The question is who and how much?" Smeltz said.

Changing the market

Another critic is PJM Interconnection, the regional transmission organization that operates the grid for 13 states, including Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.

The subsidies distort price formation and inject uncertainty into the markets, says Stu Bresler, senior vice president in charge of operations and markets at PJM.

The danger PJM sees is that each new subsidy creates a precedent for government intervention. The uncertainty makes it harder for investors to determine what sort of power generation is a sound investment in the region, Bresler explained. Those investors could simply decide to put their capital to work in other energy markets where the regulatory outlook is more stable, ultimately leading to underinvestment in places where government intervenes, he added.

Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, Londonderry Township, Pennsylvania
PJM believes longer-term, regional approaches are more appropriate. It has produced research that outlines how coal plants and nuclear energy, which provide the type of stable energy that is still necessary for reliable power supply, could play a larger role in setting prices. It is also preparing to release a report on how to put a price on carbon emissions in all or parts of the regional grid.

"If carbon emissions are the concern and that is the public policy issue with which policymakers are concerned, the simple be-all answer from a market perspective is putting a price on carbon," Bresler said.

Three Mile Island could be viable if natural gas prices rose from below $3 per million British thermal units to about $5 per mmBtu and if a "reasonable" price were applied to carbon, according to Exelon's Dominguez. He is encouraged by the fact that conversations around new pricing models and carbon pricing are gaining traction.

"The great part about this is everybody understands we have a major problem. We're losing some of the lowest-cost, cleanest and most reliable resources in America," Dominguez said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Electricity Policy debates rates, subsidies, renewables, nuclear baseload, and Quebec hydro imports, highlighting grid transmission limits, community consultation, conservation, and the province's energy mix after cancelled wind projects and rising costs to taxpayers.

Key Points

Ontario Electricity Policy guides rates, generation, grid planning, subsidies and imports for reliable, low-cost power.

✅ Focuses on rates, subsidies, and consumer affordability

✅ Balances nuclear baseload, renewables, and Quebec hydro imports

✅ Emphasizes grid transmission, consultation, and conservation

When Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals went down to defeat at the hands of Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservatives, Ontario electricity had a lot to do with it. That was in 2018. Now, two years later, Ford’s government has electricity issues of its own, including a new stance on wind power that continues to draw scrutiny.

Electricity is politically fraught in Ontario. It’s among the most expensive in Canada. And it has been mismanaged at least as far back as nuclear energy cost overruns starting in the 1980s.

From the start Wynne’s government was tainted by the gas plant scandal of her predecessor Dalton McGuinty and then she created her own with the botched roll-out of her green energy plan. And that helped Ford get elected promising to lower electricity prices. But, rates haven’t gone down under Ford while the cost to the government coffers for subsidizing them have soared - now costing $5.6 billion a year.

Meanwhile, Ford’s government has spent at least $230 million to tear up green energy contracts signed by the former Liberal government, including two wind-farm projects that were already mid-construction.

Lessons learned?
In the final part of a three-part series, the six candidates vying to become the next leader of the Ontario Liberals discuss the province's electricity system, including the lessons learned from the prior Liberal government's botched attempts to fix it that led to widespread local opposition to a string of wind power projects, and whether they'd agree to import more hydroelectricity from Quebec.

“We had the right idea but didn’t stick the landing,” said Steven Del Duca, a member of the former Wynne government who lost his Vaughan-area seat in 2018, referring to its green-energy plan. “We need to make sure that we work more collaboratively with local communities to gain the buy-in needed to be successful in this regard.”

“Consultation and listening is key,” agreed Mitzie Hunter, who was education minister under Kathleen Wynne and in 2018 retained her seat in the legislature representing Scarborough-Guildwood. “We must seek input from community members about investments locally,” she said. “Inviting experts in to advise on major policy is also important to make evidence-based decisions."

Michael Coteau, MPP for Don Valley East and the third leadership candidate who was a member of the former government, called for “a new relationship of respect and collaboration with municipalities.”

He said there is an “important balance to be achieved between pursuing province wide objectives for green-energy initiatives and recognizing and reflecting unique local conditions and circumstances.”

Kate Graham, who has worked in municipal public service and has not held a provincial public office, said that experts and local communities are best placed to shape decisions in the sector.

In the final part of a three-part series, Ontario's Liberal leadership contenders discuss electricity, lessons learned from the bungled rollout of previous Liberal green policy, and whether to lean more on Quebec's hydroelectricity.
“What's gotten Ontario in trouble in the past is when Queen's Park politicians are the ones micromanaging the electricity file,” she said.

“Community consultation is vitally important to the long-term success of infrastructure projects,” said Alvin Tedjo, a former policy adviser to Liberal ministers Brad Duguid and Glen Murray.

“Community voices must be heard and listened to when large-scale energy programs are going to be implemented,” agreed Brenda Hollingsworth, a personal injury lawyer making her first foray into politics.

Of the six candidates, only Coteau went beyond reflection to suggest a path forward, saying he would review the distribution of responsibilities between the province and municipalities, with the aim of empowering cities and towns.

Turn back to Quebec?
Ford’s government has also turned away from a deal signed in 2016 to import hydroelectricity from Quebec.

Graham and Hunter both said they would consider increasing such imports. Hunter noted that the deal, which would displace domestic natural gas production, will lower the cost of electricity paid by Ontario ratepayers by a net total of $38 million from 2017 to 2023, according to the province’s fiscal watchdog.

“I am open to working with our neighbouring province,” Hunter said. “This is especially important as we seek to bring electricity to remote northern, on-reserve Indigenous communities.”

Tedjo said he has no issues with importing clean energy as long as it’s at a fair price.

Hollingsworth and Coteau both said they would withhold judgment until they could see the province’s capacity status in 2022.

“In evaluating the case for increasing importation of water power from Quebec, we must realistically assess the limitations of the existing transmission system and the cost and time required to scale up transmission infrastructure, among other factors,” Coteau said.

Del Duca also took a wait-and-see approach. “This will depend on our energy needs and energy mix,” he said. “I want to see our energy needs go down; we need more efficiency and better conservation to make that happen.”

What's the right energy mix?
Nuclear energy currently accounts for about a third of Ontario’s energy-producing capacity, even as Canada explores zero-emissions electricity by 2035 pathways. But it actually supplies about 60 percent of Ontario’s electricity. That is because nuclear reactors are always on, producing so-called baseload power.

Hydroelectricity provides another 25 percent of supply, while oil and natural gas contribute 6 per cent and wind adds 7 percent. Both solar and biofuels account for less than one percent of Ontario’s energy supply. However, a much larger amount of solar is not counted in this tally, as it is used at or near the sites where it is generated, and never enters the transmission system.

Asked for their views on how large a role various sources of power should play in Ontario’s electricity mix in the future, the candidates largely backed the idea of renewable energy, but offered little specifics.

Graham repeated her statement that experts and communities should drive that conversation. Tedjo said all non-polluting technologies should play a role in Ontario’s energy mix, as provinces like Alberta demonstrate parallel growth in green energy and fossil fuels. Coteau said we need a mix of renewable-energy sources, without offering specifics.

“We also need to pursue carbon capture and sequestration, working in particular with our farming communities,” he added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

OESP Eligibility 2024 updates Ontario electricity affordability: TOU, Tiered, Ultra-Low-Overnight price plans, online bill calculator, higher income thresholds, monthly credits for low-income households, and a winter disconnection ban for residential customers.

Key Points

Raises income thresholds and credits to help low-income Ontarians cut electricity costs and choose suitable price plans.

✅ TOU, Tiered, and ULO price plans with online bill calculator

✅ Income eligibility thresholds raised up to 35% on March 1, 2024

✅ Winter disconnection ban for residences: Nov 15, 2023 to Apr 30, 2024

Residential, small business and farm customers can choose their price plan, either Time-Of-Use (TOU), Tiered or the ultra-low overnight rates price plan available to many customers. The OEB has an online bill calculator to help customers who are considering a switch in price plans and monitoring changes for electricity consumers this year. 

The Government of Ontario announced on Friday, October 19, 2023, that it is raising the income eligibility thresholds that enable Ontarians to qualify for the Ontario Electricity Support Program (OESP) by up to 35 percent. OESP is part of Ontario’s energy affordability framework and other support for electric bills meant to reduce the cost of electricity for low-income households by applying a monthly credit directly on to electricity bills.. The higher income eligibility thresholds will begin on March 1, 2024.

The amount of OESP bill credit is determined by the number of people living in a home and the household’s combined income, and can help offset typical bill increases many customers experience. The current income thresholds cap income eligibility at $28,000 for one-person households and $52,000 for five-person households, and temporary measures like the off-peak price freeze have also influenced bills in recent periods.

The new income eligibility thresholds, which will be in effect beginning March 1, 2024, will allow many more families to access the program as rates are about to change across Ontario.

In addition, under the OEB’s winter disconnection ban, which follows the Nov. 1 rate increase, electricity distributors cannot disconnect residential customers for non-payment from November 15, 2023, to April 30, 2024.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Wind Power Policy Shift signals renewed investment in renewable energy, wind farms, and grid resilience, aligning with climate goals, lower electricity costs, job creation, and turbine technology for cleaner, diversified power.

Key Points

A provincial pivot to expand wind energy, meet climate goals, lower costs, and boost jobs across Ontario’s power system.

✅ Diversifies Ontario's grid with scalable renewable capacity.

✅ Targets emissions cuts while stabilizing electricity prices.

✅ Spurs rural investment, supply chains, and skilled jobs.

Ontario’s energy landscape is undergoing a significant transformation as Premier Doug Ford makes a notable shift in his approach to wind power. This change represents a strategic pivot in the province’s energy policy, potentially altering the future of Ontario’s power generation, environmental goals, and economic prospects.

The Backdrop: Ford’s Initial Stance on Wind Power

When Doug Ford first assumed the role of Premier in 2018, his administration was marked by a strong stance against renewable energy projects, including wind power, with Ford later saying he was proud of tearing up contracts as part of this shift. Ford’s government inherited a legacy of ambitious renewable energy commitments from the previous Liberal administration under Kathleen Wynne, which had invested heavily in wind and solar energy. The Ford government, however, was critical of these initiatives, arguing that they resulted in high energy costs and a surplus of power that was not always needed.

In 2019, Ford’s government began rolling back several renewable energy projects, including wind farms, and was soon tested by the Cornwall wind farm ruling that scrutinized a cancellation. This move was driven by a promise to reduce electricity bills and cut what was perceived as wasteful spending on green energy. The cancellation of several wind projects led to frustration among environmental advocates and the renewable energy sector, who viewed the decision as a setback for Ontario’s climate goals.

The Shift: Embracing Wind Power

Fast forward to 2024, and Premier Ford’s administration is taking a markedly different approach. The recent policy shift, which moves to reintroduce renewable projects, indicates a newfound openness to wind power, reflecting a broader acknowledgment of the changing dynamics in energy needs and environmental priorities.

Several factors appear to have influenced this shift:

1. Rising Energy Demands and Climate Goals: Ontario’s growing energy demands, coupled with the pressing need to address climate change, have necessitated a reevaluation of the province’s energy strategy. As Canada commits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to cleaner energy sources, wind power is increasingly seen as a crucial component of this strategy. Ford’s change in direction aligns with these national and global goals.

2. Economic Considerations: The economic landscape has also evolved since Ford’s initial opposition to wind power. The cost of wind energy has decreased significantly over the past few years, making it a more competitive and viable option compared to traditional energy sources, as competitive wind power gains momentum in markets worldwide. Additionally, the wind energy sector promises substantial job creation and economic benefits, which are appealing in the context of post-pandemic recovery and economic growth.

3. Public Opinion and Pressure: Public opinion and advocacy groups have played a role in shaping policy. There has been a growing demand from Ontarians for more sustainable and environmentally friendly energy solutions. The Ford administration has been responsive to these concerns, recognizing the importance of addressing public and environmental pressures.

4. Technological Advancements: Advances in wind turbine technology have improved efficiency and reduced the impact on wildlife and local communities. Modern wind farms are less intrusive and more effective, addressing some of the concerns that were previously associated with wind power.

Implications of the Policy Shift

The implications of Ford’s shift towards wind power are far-reaching. Here are some key areas affected by this change:

1. Energy Portfolio Diversification: By reembracing wind power, Ontario will diversify its energy portfolio, reducing its reliance on fossil fuels and increasing the proportion of renewable energy in the mix. This shift will contribute to a more resilient and sustainable energy system.

2. Environmental Impact: Increased investment in wind power will contribute to Ontario’s efforts to combat climate change. Wind energy is a clean, renewable source that produces no greenhouse gas emissions during operation. This aligns with broader environmental goals and helps mitigate the impact of climate change.

3. Economic Growth and Job Creation: The wind power sector has the potential to drive significant economic growth and create jobs. Investments in wind farms and associated infrastructure can stimulate local economies, particularly in rural areas where many wind farms are located.

4. Energy Prices: While the initial shift away from wind power was partly motivated by concerns about high energy costs, including exposure to costly cancellation fees in some cases, the decreasing cost of wind energy could help stabilize or even lower electricity prices in the long term. As wind power becomes a larger component of Ontario’s energy supply, it could contribute to a more stable and affordable energy market.

Moving Forward: Challenges and Opportunities

Despite the positive aspects of this policy shift, there are challenges to consider, and other provinces have faced setbacks such as the Alberta wind farm scrapped by TransAlta that illustrate potential hurdles. Integrating wind power into the existing grid requires careful planning and investment in grid infrastructure. Additionally, addressing local concerns about wind farms, such as their impact on landscapes and wildlife, will be crucial to gaining broader acceptance.

Overall, Doug Ford’s shift towards wind power represents a significant and strategic change in Ontario’s energy policy. It reflects a broader understanding of the evolving energy landscape and the need for a sustainable and economically viable energy future. As the province navigates this new direction, the success of this policy will depend on effective implementation, ongoing stakeholder engagement, and a commitment to balancing environmental, economic, and social considerations, even as the electricity future debate continues among party leaders.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Shift from Fossil Fuels to Renewables signals an energy transition and decarbonization, as investors favor wind and solar over coal, oil, and gas due to falling ROI, policy shifts, and accelerating clean-tech innovation.

Key Points

An economic and policy-driven move redirecting capital from coal, oil, and gas to scalable wind and solar power.

✅ Driven by ROI, risk, and protests curbing fossil fuel projects

✅ Coal declines as wind and solar capacity surges globally

✅ Policy, technology, and markets speed the energy transition

This article is an excerpt from "Changing Tides: An Ecologist's Journey to Make Peace with the Anthropocene" by Alejandro Frid. Reproduced with permission from New Society Publishers. The book releases Oct. 15.

The climate and biodiversity crises reflect the stories that we have allowed to infiltrate the collective psyche of industrial civilization. It is high time to let go of these stories. Unclutter ourselves. Regain clarity. Make room for other stories that can help us reshape our ways of being in the world.

For starters, I’d love to let go of what has been our most venerated and ingrained story since the mid-1700s: that burning more fossil fuels is synonymous with prosperity. Letting go of that story shouldn’t be too hard these days. Financial investment over the past decade has been shifting very quickly away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energies, as Europe's oil majors increasingly pivot to electrification. Even Bob Dudley, group chief executive of BP — one of the largest fossil fuel corporations in the world — acknowledged the trend, writing in the "BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2017": "The relentless drive to improve energy efficiency is causing global energy consumption overall to decelerate. And, of course, the energy mix is shifting towards cleaner, lower carbon fuels, driven by environmental needs and technological advances." Dudley went on:

Coal consumption fell sharply for the second consecutive year, with its share within primary energy falling to its lowest level since 2004. Indeed, coal production and consumption in the U.K. completed an entire cycle, falling back to levels last seen almost 200 years ago around the time of the Industrial Revolution, with the U.K. power sector recording its first-ever coal-free day in April of this year. In contrast, renewable energy globally led by wind and solar power grew strongly, helped by continuing technological advances.

According to Dudley’s team, global production of oil and natural gas also slowed down in 2016. Meanwhile, that same year, the combined power provided by wind and solar energy increased by 14.6 percent: the biggest jump on record. All in all, since 2005, the installed capacity for renewable energy has grown exponentially, doubling every 5.5 years, as investment incentives expand to accelerate clean power.

The shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewables has been happening not because investors suddenly became science-literate, ethical beings, but because most investors follow the money, and Trump-era oil policies even reshaped Wall Street’s energy strategies.

It is important to celebrate that King Coal — that grand initiator of the Industrial Revolution and nastiest of fossil fuels — has just begun to lose its power over people and the atmosphere. But it is even more important to understand the underlying causes for these changes. The shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewables has been happening not because the bulk of investors suddenly became science-literate, ethical beings, but because most investors follow the money.

The easy fossil fuels — the kind you used to be able to extract with a large profit margin and relatively low risk of disaster — are essentially gone. Almost all that is left are the dregs: unconventional fossil fuels such as bitumen, or untapped offshore oil reserves in very deep water or otherwise challenging environments, like the Arctic. Sure, the dregs are massive enough to keep tempting investors. There is so much unconventional oil and shale gas left underground that, if we burned it, we would warm the world by 6 degrees or more. But unconventional fossil fuels are very expensive and energy-intensive to extract, refine and market. Additionally, new fossil fuel projects, at least in my part of the world, have become hair triggers for social unrest. For instance, Burnaby Mountain, near my home in British Columbia, where renewable electricity in B.C. is expanding, is the site of a proposed bitumen pipeline expansion where hundreds of people have been arrested since 2015 during multiple acts of civil disobedience against new fossil fuel infrastructure. By triggering legal action and delaying the project, these protests have dented corporate profits. So return on investment for fossil fuels has been dropping.

It is no coincidence that in 2017, Petronas, a huge transnational energy corporation, withdrew their massive proposal to build liquefied natural gas infrastructure on the north coast of British Columbia, as Canada's race to net-zero gathers pace across industry. Petronas backed out not because of climate change or to protect essential rearing habitat for salmon, but to backpedal from a deal that would fail to make them richer.

Shifting investment away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy, even as fossil-fuel workers signal readiness to support the transition, does not mean we have entirely ditched that tired old story about fossil fuel prosperity.

Neoliberal shifts to favor renewable energies can be completely devoid of concern for climate change. While in office, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry questioned climate science and cheered for the oil industry, yet that did not stop him from directing his state towards an expansion of wind and solar energy, even as President Obama argued that decarbonization is irreversible and anchored in long-term economics. Perry saw money to be made by batting for both teams, and merely did what most neoliberal entrepreneurs would have done.

The right change for the wrong reasons brings no guarantees. Shifting investment away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy does not mean we have entirely ditched that tired old story about fossil fuel prosperity. Once again, let’s look at Perry. As U.S. secretary of energy under Trump’s presidency, in 2017 he called the global shift from fossil fuels "immoral" and said the United States was "blessed" to provide fossil fuels for the world.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Hydro One Avista Takeover faces Washington UTC scrutiny as regulators deny approval; companies plan a reconsideration petition, citing acquisition terms, governance concerns, merger risks, EPS dilution, and balance sheet impacts across regulated utility operations.

Key Points

A $6.7B bid by Hydro One to buy Avista, denied by Washington UTC on governance risk, under reconsideration petition.

✅ UTC denied over potential provincial interference.

✅ Petition for reconsideration due by Dec. 17.

✅ Deal seen diluting EPS, weakening balance sheet.

Hydro One Ltd. and Avista Corp. say they plan to formally request that the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission reconsider its order last week denying approval of the $6.7-billion takeover, which previously received U.S. antitrust clearance from federal regulators, of the U.S.-based energy utility.

The two companies say they will file a petition no later than Dec. 17 but haven't indicated on what grounds they are making the request, even as investor concerns about Hydro One persist.

Under Washington State law, the UTC has 20 days to consider the petition, otherwise it is deemed to be denied.

If it reconsiders its decision, the UTC can modify the prior order or take any actions it deems appropriate, similar to provincial rulings such as the OEB decision on Hydro One's first combined T&D rates, including extending deliberations.

Washington State regulators said they would not allow Ontario's largest utility to buy Avista for fear the provincial government, which owns 47 per cent of Hydro One's shares and recently prompted a CEO and board exit at the utility, might meddle in Avista's operations.

Hydro One's shares have risen since the order because the deal, announced in July 2017, would have eroded earnings per share and weakened Hydro One's balance sheet, according to analysts, even as the company reported a one-time-boosted Q2 profit earlier this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News