PUC commissioners visit Comanche plant

Muskrat Falls financial impact highlights a hydro megaproject's cost overruns, rate mitigation challenges, and inquiry findings in Newfoundland and Labrador, with power exports, Churchill River generation, and subsea cables shaping long-term viability.

Key Points

It refers to the project's burden on provincial finances, driven by cost overruns, rate hikes, and debt risks.

✅ Costs rose to $12.7B from $6.2B; inquiry cites suppressed risks.

✅ Rate mitigation needed to offset power bill shocks.

✅ Exports via subsea cables may improve long-term viability.

Newfoundland and Labrador's premier says the Muskrat Falls hydro megaproject is currently too much of a massive financial burden for him to be optimistic about its long-term potential.

"I am probably one of the most optimistic people in this room," Liberal Premier Dwight Ball told the inquiry into the project's runaway cost and scheduling issues, echoing challenges at Manitoba Hydro that have raised similar concerns.

"I believe the future is optimistic for Newfoundland Labrador, of course I do. But I'm not going to sit here today and say we have an optimistic future because of the Muskrat Falls project."

Ball, who was re-elected on May 16, has been critical of the project since he was opposition leader around the time it was sanctioned by the former Tory government.

He said Friday that despite his criticism of the Labrador dam, which has seen costs essentially double to more than $12.7 billion, he didn't set out to celebrate a failed project.

He said he still wants to see Muskrat Falls succeed someday through power sales outside the province, but there are immediate challenges -- including mitigating power-rate hikes once the dam starts providing full power and addressing winter reliability risks for households.

"We were told the project would be $6.2 billion, we're at $12.7 (billion). We were never told this project would be nearly 30 per cent of the net debt of this province just six, seven years later," the premier said.

"I wanted this to be successful, and in the long term I still want it to be successful. But we have to deal with the next 10 years."

The nearly complete dam will harness Labrador's lower Churchill River to provide electricity to the province as well as Nova Scotia and potentially beyond through subsea cables, while the legacy of Churchill Falls continues to shape regional power arrangements.

Ball's testimony wraps up a crucial phase of hearings in the extensive public inquiry.

The inquiry has heard from dozens of witnesses, with current and former politicians, bureaucrats, executives and consultants, amid debates over Quebec's electricity ambitions in the region, shedding long-demanded light on what went on behind closed doors that made the project go sideways.

Some witnesses have suggested that estimates were intentionally suppressed, and many high-ranking officials, including former premiers, have denied seeing key information about risk.

On Thursday, Ball testified to his shock when he began to understand the true financial state of the project after he was elected premier in 2015.

On Friday, Ball said he has more faith in future of the offshore oil and gas industry, and emerging options like small nuclear reactors, for example, than a mismanaged project that has put immense pressure on residents already struggling to make ends meet.

After his testimony, Ball said he takes some responsibility for a missed opportunity to mitigate methylmercury risks downstream from the dam through capping the reservoir, in parallel with debates over biomass power in electricity generation, something he had committed to doing before it is fully flooded this summer.

Still to come is a third phase of hearings on future best practices for issues like managing large-scale projects and independent electricity planning, two public feedback sessions and closing submissions from lawyers.

The final report from the inquiry is due before Dec. 31.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out ends power generation from reactors, prioritizing energy security, renewables, and emissions goals amid the Ukraine war, natural gas shortages, decommissioning plans, and climate change debates across Europe and the national power grid.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out ends reactors, shifting to renewables to balance energy security, emissions, climate goals.

✅ Three reactors closed: Emsland, Isar II, Neckarwestheim II

✅ Pivot to renewables, efficiency, and grid resilience

✅ Continued roles in fuel fabrication and decommissioning

Germany is no longer producing any electricity from nuclear power plants, a move widely seen as turning its back on nuclear for good.

Closures of the Emsland, Isar II, and Neckarwestheim II nuclear plants in Germany were expected. The country announced plans to phase out nuclear power in 2011. However, in the fall of 2022, with the Ukraine war constraining access to energy, especially in Europe, Germany decided to extend nuclear power operations for an additional few months to bolster supplies.

“This was a highly anticipated action. The German government extended the lifetimes of these plants for a few months but never planned beyond that,” David Victor, a professor of innovation and public policy at UC San Diego, said.

Responses to the closures ranged from aghast that Germany would shut down a clean source of energy production, especially as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy. In contrast, the global response to anthropogenic climate change continues to be insufficient to celebratory that the country will avoid any nuclear accidents like those that have happened in other parts of the world.

A collection of esteemed scientists, including two Nobel laureates and professors from MIT and Columbia, made a last-minute plea in an open letter published on April 14 on the nuclear advocacy group’s website, RePlaneteers, to keep the reactors operating, reviving questions about a resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany today.

“Given the threat that climate change poses to life on our planet and the obvious energy crisis in which Germany and Europe find themselves due to the unavailability of Russian natural gas, we call on you to continue operating the last remaining German nuclear power plants,” the letter states.

The open letter states that the Emsland, Isar II, and Neckarwestheim II facilities provided more than 10 million German households with electricity, even as some officials argued that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue then. That’s a quarter of the population.

“This is hugely disappointing, when a secure low carbon 24/7 source of energy such as nuclear was available and could have continued operation for another 40 years,” Henry Preston, spokesperson for the World Nuclear Association. “Germany’s nuclear industry has been world-class. All three reactors shut down at the weekend performed extremely well.”

Despite the shutdown, some segments of nuclear industrial processes will continue to operate. “Germany’s nuclear sector will continue to be first class in the wider nuclear supply chain in areas such as fuel fabrication and decommissioning,” Preston said.

While the open letter did not succeed in keeping the nuclear reactors open, it does underscore a crucial reason why nuclear power has been part of global energy conversations recently, with some arguing it is a needed option for climate policy after a generational lull in the construction of nuclear power plants: climate change.

Generating electricity with nuclear reactors does not create any greenhouse gases. And as global climate change response efforts continue to fall short of emission targets, atomic energy is getting renewed consideration, and Germany has even considered a U-turn on its phaseout amid renewed debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Kenya Nuclear Power Plant Project advances with environmental impact assessment, selecting Tana River County under a build-operate-transfer model to boost grid capacity, support manufacturing growth, and assess reactor technology for reliable baseload energy.

Key Points

A $5B BOT nuclear facility in Tana River to expand Kenya's grid, aiming to start operations in about seven years.

✅ Environmental impact study published for public review by NEMA

✅ Preferred site: Tana River County near coast; grid integration

✅ BOT concession; reactor tech under evaluation for baseload

Kenya’s nuclear agency submitted impact studies for a $5 billion power plant, and said it’s on course to build and start operating the facility in about seven years, as markets like China's nuclear program continue steady expansion.

The government plans to expand its nuclear-power capacity fourfold by 2035, mirroring policy steps in India to revive the sector, the Nuclear Power and Energy Agency said in a report on the National Environment Management Authority’s website. The document is set for public scrutiny before the environmental watchdog can approve it, aligning with global green industrial strategies that weigh nuclear in decarbonization, and pave the way for the project to continue.

President Uhuru Kenyatta wants to ramp up installed generation capacity from 2,712 megawatts as of April to boost manufacturing in East Africa’s largest economy, noting milestones such as Barakah Unit 1 reaching 100% power as indicators of nuclear readiness. Kenya expects peak demand to top 22,000 megawatts by 2031, and other jurisdictions, such as Ontario's exploration of new nuclear, are weighing similar large-scale options, partly due to industrial expansion, a component in Kenyatta’s Big Four Agenda. The other three are improving farming, health care and housing.

The nuclear agency is assessing technologies “to identify the ideal reactor for the country,” it said in the report, including next-gen nuclear designs now being evaluated.

A site in Tana River County, near the Kenyan coast was preferred after studies across three regions, according to the report. The plant will be developed with a concessionaire under a build, operate and transfer model, with innovators such as mini-reactor concepts informing vendor options.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Wind and Solar Surpass Coal in U.S. power generation, as EIA data cites falling LCOE, clean energy incentives, grid upgrades, and battery storage driving renewables growth, lower emissions, jobs, and less fossil fuel reliance.

Key Points

An EIA-noted milestone where U.S. renewables outproduce coal, driven by lower LCOE, policy credits, and grid upgrades.

✅ EIA data shows wind and solar exceed coal generation

✅ Falling LCOE boosts project viability across the grid

✅ Policies and storage advances strengthen reliability

In a landmark shift for the energy sector, wind and solar power have recently surpassed coal in electricity generation in the United States. This milestone, reported by Warp News, marks a significant turning point in the country’s energy landscape and underscores the growing dominance of renewable energy sources.

A Landmark Achievement

The achievement of wind and solar energy generating more electricity than coal is a landmark moment in the U.S. energy sector. Historically, coal has been a cornerstone of electricity production, providing a substantial portion of the nation's power needs. However, recent data reveals a transformative shift, with renewables surpassing coal for the first time in 130 years, as renewable energy sources, particularly wind and solar, have begun to outpace coal in terms of electricity generation.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported that in recent months, wind and solar combined produced more electricity than coal, including a record 28% share in April, reflecting a broader trend towards cleaner energy sources. This development is driven by several factors, including advancements in renewable technology, decreasing costs, and a growing commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Technological Advancements and Cost Reductions

One of the key drivers behind this shift is the rapid advancement in wind and solar technologies, as wind power surges in the U.S. electricity mix across regions. Improvements in turbine and panel efficiency have significantly increased the amount of electricity that can be generated from these sources. Additionally, technological innovations have led to lower production costs, making wind and solar energy more competitive with traditional fossil fuels.

The cost of solar panels and wind turbines has decreased dramatically over the past decade, making renewable energy projects more economically viable. According to Warp News, the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) from solar and wind has fallen to levels that are now comparable to or lower than coal-fired power. This trend has been pivotal in accelerating the transition to renewable energy sources.

Policy Support and Investment

Government policies and incentives have also played a crucial role in supporting the growth of wind and solar energy, with wind now the most-used renewable electricity source in the U.S. helping drive deployment. Federal and state-level initiatives, such as tax credits, subsidies, and renewable energy mandates, have encouraged investment in clean energy technologies. These policies have provided the financial and regulatory support necessary for the expansion of renewable energy infrastructure.

The Biden administration’s focus on addressing climate change and promoting clean energy has further bolstered the transition. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, among other legislative efforts, have allocated significant funding for renewable energy projects, grid modernization, and research into advanced technologies.

Environmental and Economic Implications

The surpassing of coal by wind and solar energy has significant environmental and economic implications, building on the milestone when renewables became the second-most prevalent U.S. electricity source in 2020 and set the stage for further gains. Environmentally, it represents a major step forward in reducing carbon emissions and mitigating climate change. Coal-fired power plants are among the largest sources of greenhouse gases, and transitioning to cleaner energy sources is essential for meeting climate targets and improving air quality.

Economically, the shift towards wind and solar energy is creating new opportunities and industries. The growth of the renewable energy sector is generating jobs in manufacturing, installation, and maintenance. Additionally, the decreased reliance on imported fossil fuels enhances energy security and stabilizes energy prices.

Challenges and Future Outlook

Despite the progress, there are still challenges to address. The intermittency of wind and solar power requires advancements in energy storage and grid management to ensure a reliable electricity supply. Investments in battery storage technologies and smart grid infrastructure are crucial for overcoming these challenges and integrating higher shares of renewable energy into the grid.

Looking ahead, the trend towards renewable energy is expected to continue, with renewables projected to soon provide about one-fourth of U.S. electricity as deployment accelerates, driven by ongoing technological advancements, supportive policies, and a growing commitment to sustainability. As wind and solar power become increasingly cost-competitive and efficient, their role in the U.S. energy mix will likely expand, further displacing coal and other fossil fuels.

Conclusion

The surpassing of coal by wind and solar energy in U.S. electricity generation is a significant milestone in the transition to a cleaner, more sustainable energy future. This achievement highlights the growing importance of renewable energy sources and the success of technological advancements and supportive policies in driving this transition. As the U.S. continues to invest in and develop renewable energy infrastructure, the move away from coal represents a crucial step towards achieving environmental goals and fostering economic growth in the clean energy sector.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

US Nuclear Generating Costs 2017 show USD33.50/MWh for nuclear energy, the lowest since 2008, as capital expenditures, fuel costs, and operating costs declined after license renewals and uprates, supporting a reliable, low-carbon grid.

Key Points

The 2017 US nuclear average was USD33.50/MWh, lowest since 2008, driven by reduced capital, fuel, and operating costs.

✅ Average cost USD33.50/MWh, lowest since 2008

✅ Capital, fuel, O&M costs fell sharply since 2012 peak

✅ License renewals, uprates, market reforms shape competitiveness

Average total generating costs for nuclear energy in 2017 in the USA were at their lowest since 2008, according to a study released by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), amid a continuing nuclear decline debate in other regions.

The report, Nuclear Costs in Context, found that in 2017 the average total generating cost - which includes capital, fuel and operating costs - for nuclear energy was USD33.50 per megawatt-hour (MWh), even as interest in next-generation nuclear designs grows among stakeholders. This is 3.3% lower than in 2016 and more than 19% below 2012's peak. The reduction in costs since 2012 is due to a 40.8% reduction in capital expenditures, a 17.2% reduction in fuel costs and an 8.7% reduction in operating costs, the organisation said.

The year-on-year decline in capital costs over the past five years reflects the completion by most plants of efforts to prepare for operation beyond their initial 40-year licence. A few major items - a series of vessel head replacements; steam generator replacements and other upgrades as companies prepared for continued operation, and power uprates to increase output from existing plants - caused capital investment to increase to a peak in 2012. "As a result of these investments, 86 of the [USA's] 99 operating reactors in 2017 have received 20-year licence renewals and 92 of the operating reactors have been approved for uprates that have added over 7900 megawatts of electricity capacity. Capital spending on uprates and items necessary for operation beyond 40 years has moderated as most plants are completing these efforts," it says.

Since 2013, seven US nuclear reactors have shut down permanently, with the Three Mile Island debate highlighting wider policy questions, and another 12 have announced their permanent shutdown. The early closure for economic reasons of reliable nuclear plants with high capacity factors and relatively low generating costs will have long-term economic consequences, the report warns: replacement generating capacity, when needed, will produce more costly electricity, fewer jobs that will pay less, and, for net-zero emissions objectives, more pollution, it says.

NEI Vice President of Policy Development and Public Affairs John Kotek said the "hardworking men and women of the nuclear industry" had done an "amazing job" reducing costs through the institute's Delivering the Nuclear Promise campaign and other initiatives, in line with IAEA low-carbon lessons from the pandemic. "As we continue to face economic headwinds in markets which do not properly compensate nuclear plants, the industry has been doing its part to reduce costs to remain competitive," he said.

"Some things are in urgent need of change if we are to keep the nation's nuclear plants running and enjoy their contribution to a reliable, resilient and low-carbon grid. Namely, we need to put in place market reforms that fairly compensate nuclear similar to those already in place in New York, Illinois and other states," Kotek added.

Cost information in the study was collected by the Electric Utility Cost Group with prior years converted to 2017 dollars for accurate historical comparison.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hydro One investment risk reflects Ontario government influence, board shakeup, Avista acquisition uncertainty, regulatory hearings, dividend growth prospects, and utility M&A moves in Peterborough, with stock volatility since the 2015 IPO.

Key Points

Hydro One investment risk stems from political control, governance turnover, regulatory outcomes, and uncertain M&A.

✅ Ontario retains near-50% stake, affecting autonomy and policy risk

✅ Board overhaul and CEO exit create governance uncertainty

✅ Avista deal, OEB hearings, local utility M&A drive outcomes

Hydro One may be only half-owned by the province on Ontario but that’s enough to cause uncertainty about the company’s future, thus making for an investment risk, says Douglas Kee of Leon Frazer & Associates.

Since its IPO in November of 2015, Hydro One has seen its share of ups and downs, including a Q2 profit decline earlier this year, mostly downs at this point. Currently trading at $19.87, the stock has lost 11 per cent of its value in 2018 and 12 per cent over the last 12 months, despite a one-time gain boosting Q2 profit that followed a court ruling.

This year has been a turbulent one, to say the least, as newly elected Ontario premier Doug Ford made good this summer on his campaign promise re Hydro One by forcing the resignation of the company’s 14-person board of directors along with the retirement of its chief executive, an event that saw Hydro One shares fall amid the turmoil. An interim CEO has been found and a new 10-person board and chairman put in place, but Kee says it’s unclear what impact the shakeup will ultimately have, other than delaying a promising-looking deal to purchase US utility Avista Corp, with the companies moving to ask the U.S. regulator to reconsider the order.

Douglas Kee’s take on Hydro One stock

“We looked at Hydro One a couple of times two years ago and just decided that with the Ontario government’s still owning a big chunk of the company … there are other public companies where you get the same kind of yield, the same kind of dividend growth, so we just avoided it,” says Kee, managing director and chief investment officer with Leon Frazer & Associates, to BNN Bloomberg.

“The old board versus the new board, I’m not sure that there’s much of an improvement. It was politics more than anything,” he says. “The unfortunate part is that the acquisition they were making in the United States is kind of on hold for now. The regulatory procedures have gone ahead but they are worried, and I guess the new board has to make a decision whether to go ahead with it or not.”

“Their transmissions side is coming up for regulatory hearings next year, which could be difficult in Ontario,” says Kee. “The offset to that is that there are a lot of municipal distributions systems in Ontario that may be sold — they bought one in Peterborough recently, which was a good deal for them. There may be more of that coming too.”

Last month, Hydro One reached an agreement with the City of Peterborough to buy its Peterborough Distribution utility which serves about 37,000 customers for $105 million. Another deal to purchase Orillia Power Distribution Corp for $41 million has been cancelled after an appeal to the Ontario Energy Board was denied in late August. Hydro One’s sought-after Avista Corp acquisition is reported to be worth $7 billion.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News