Governor: Oregon could be electric car leader

Hydro One CEO Mark Poweska aims to rebuild ties with Ontario's provincial government, investors, and communities, stabilize the executive team, boost earnings and dividends, and reset strategy after the scrapped Avista deal and regulatory setbacks.

Key Points

He plans to mend government and investor relations, rebuild the C-suite, and refocus growth after the failed Avista bid.

✅ Rebuild ties with Ontario government and regulators

✅ Stabilize executive team and governance

✅ Refocus growth after Avista deal termination

The incoming chief executive officer of Hydro One Ltd. said Thursday that he aims to rebuild the relationship between the Ontario electrical utility and the provincial government, as seen in COVID-19 support initiatives, as well as ties between the company and its investors.

Mark Poweska, the former executive vice-president of operations at BC Hydro, was announced as Hydro One’s new president and CEO in March. His hiring followed a turbulent period for Toronto-based Hydro One, Ontario’s biggest distributor and transmitter of electricity, with large-scale storm restoration efforts underscoring its role.

Hydro One’s former CEO and board of directors departed last year under pressure from a new Ontario government, the utility’s biggest shareholder. Earlier this year, the company’s plan for a $6.7-billion takeover fell apart over concerns of political interference and the utility clashed with the new provincial government and Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford over executive compensation levels, amid rate policy debates such as no peak rate cuts for self-isolating customers.

Hydro One facing $885 million charge as regulator upholds tax decision forcing it to share savings with customers

Shares of Hydro One were up more than eight per cent year-to-date on Wednesday, closing at $21.74. However, the stock price was up only six per cent from Hydro One’s 2015 initial public offering price, something its incoming CEO seems set on changing.

“One of my first priorities will be to solidify the executive team and build relationships with the Government of Ontario, our customers, informed by customer flexibility research, and communities, indigenous leaders, investors, and our partners across the electricity sector,” Poweska said Thursday on a conference call outlining Hydro One’s first-quarter results. “At the same time, I will be working to earn the trust and confidence of the investment community.”

Hydro One reported a profit of $171 million for the three months ended March 31, while peers such as Hydro-Québec reported pandemic-related losses as the sector adapted. Net income for the first quarter was down from $222 million a year earlier, which was due to $140 million in costs related to the scrapping of Hydro One’s proposed acquisition of U.S. energy company Avista Corp.

Hydro One Ltd. appointed Mark Poweska as President and CEO.

In January, Hydro One said the proposed takeover of Spokane, Wash.-headquartered Avista, an approximately $6.7-billion deal announced in July 2017, was being called off. As a result, Hydro One said it would pay Avista a US$103 million break fee.

Revenues net of purchased power for the first quarter rose to $952 million, up by 15.4 per cent compared to last year, Hydro One said, helped by higher distribution revenues. Adjusted profit for the quarter, which removes the Avista-related costs, was $311 million, up from $210 million a year ago.

The company is hiking its quarterly dividend to 24.15 cents per share, up five per cent from the last increase in May 2018, while also launching a pandemic relief fund for customers.

Poweska is taking over for acting president and CEO Paul Dobson this month, and the new executive will be charged with revamping Hydro One’s C-suite.

The company’s chief operating officer, chief legal officer, and chief corporate development officer have all departed this year. The company’s chief human resource officer has retired as well, although Poweska did announce Thursday that he had appointed acting chief financial officer Chris Lopez as CFO.

“Hydro One’s significant bench strength and management depth will ensure stability and continuity during this period of transition, as the sector pursues Hydro-Québec energy transition as well,” the company said in its first-quarter earnings press release.

Ontario remains Hydro One’s biggest shareholder, owning approximately 47 per cent of the company.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Nova Scotia Power Rate Increase Settlement faces UARB scrutiny as regulators weigh electricity rates, fuel costs, storm rider provisions, Bill 212 limits, and Muskrat Falls impacts on ratepayers and affordability for residential and industrial customers.

Key Points

A deal proposing 13.8% electricity hikes for 2023-2024, before the UARB, covering fuel costs, a storm rider, and Bill 212.

✅ UARB review may set different rates than the settlement

✅ Fuel cost prepayment and hedging incentives questioned

✅ Storm rider shifts climate risk onto ratepayers

Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston is calling on provincial regulators to reject a settlement agreement between Nova Scotia Power and customer groups that would see electricity rates rise by nearly 14% electricity rate hike over the next two years.

"It is our shared responsibility to protect ratepayers and I can't state strongly enough how concerned I am that the agreement before you does not do that," Houston wrote in a letter to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board late Monday.

Houston urged the three-member panel to "set the agreement aside and reach its own conclusion on the aforementioned application."

"I do not believe, based on what I know, that the proposed agreement is in the best interest of ratepayers," he said.

The letter does not spell out what his Progressive Conservative government would do if the board accepts the settlement reached last week between Nova Scotia Power and lawyers representing residential, small business and large industrial customer classes.

Other groups also endorsed the deal, although Nova Scotia Power's biggest customer — Port Hawkesbury Paper — did not sign on.

'We're protecting the ratepayers'
Natural Resources Minister Tory Rushton said the province was not part of the negotiations leading up to the settlement.

"As a government or department we had no intel on those conversations that were taking place," he said Tuesday. "So, we saw the information the same as the public did late last week, and right now we're protecting the ratepayers of Nova Scotia, even though the province cannot order Nova Scotia Power to lower rates under current law. We want to make sure that that voice is still heard at the UARB level."

Rushton said he didn't want to presuppose what the UARB will say.

"But I think the premier's been very loud and clear and I believe I have been, too. The ratepayers are at the top of our mind. We have different tools at our [disposal] and we'll certainly do what we can and need to [do] to protect those ratepayers."

The settlement agreement
If approved by regulators, rates would rise by 6.9 per cent in 2023 and 6.9 per cent in 2024 — almost the same amount on the table when hearings before the review board ended in September.

The Houston government later intervened with legislation, known as Bill 212, that capped rates to cover non-fuel costs by 1.8 per cent. It did not cap rates to cover fuel costs or energy efficiency programs.

In a statement announcing the agreement, Nova Scotia Power president Peter Gregg claimed the settlement adhered "to the direction provided by the provincial government through Bill 212."

Consumer advocate Bill Mahody, representing residential customers, told CBC News the proposed 13.8 per cent increase was "a reasonable rate increase given the revenue requirement that was testified to at the hearing."

Settlement 'remarkably' similar to NSP application
The premier disagrees, noting that the settlement and rate application that triggered the rate cap are "remarkably consistent."

He objects to the increased amount of fuel costs rolled into rates next year before the annual true up of actual fuel costs, which are automatically passed on to ratepayers.

"If Nova Scotia Power is effectively paid in advance, what motive do they have to hedge and mitigate the adjustment eventually required," Houston asked in his letter.

He also objected to the inclusion of a storm rider in rates to cover extreme weather, which he said pushed the risk of climate change on to ratepayers.

Premier second-guesses Muskrat Falls approval
Houston also second-guessed the board for approving Nova Scotia Power's participation in the Muskrat Falls hydro project in Labrador.

"The fact that Nova Scotians have paid over $500 million for this project with minimal benefit, and no one has been held accountable, is wrong," he said. "It was this board of the day that approved the contracts and entered the final project into rates."

Ratepayers are committed to paying $1.7 billion for the Maritime Link to bring the green source of electricity into the province, while rate mitigation talks in Newfoundland lack public details for their customers.

Although the Maritime Link was built on time and on budget by an affiliated company, only a fraction of Muskrat Falls hydro has been delivered because of ongoing problems in Newfoundland, including an 18% electricity rate hike deemed unacceptable by the province's consumer advocate.

"I find it remarkable that those contracts did not include different risk sharing mechanisms; they should have had provisions for issues in oversight of project management. Nevertheless, it was approved, and is causing significant harm to ratepayers in the form of increased rates."

Houston notes that because of non-delivery from Muskrat Falls, Nova Scotia Power has been forced to buy much more expensive coal to burn to generate electricity.

Opposition reaction
Opposition parties in Nova Scotia reacted to Houston's letter.

NDP Leader Claudia Chender dismissed it as bluster.

"It exposes his Bill 212 as not really helping Nova Scotians in the way that he said it would," she said. "Nothing in the settlement agreement contravenes that bill. But it seems that he's upset that he's been found out. And so here we are with another intervention in an independent regulatory body."

Liberal Leader Zach Churchill said the government should intervene to help ratepayers directly.

"We just think that it makes more sense to do that directly by supporting ratepayers through heating assistance, lump-sum electricity credits, rebate programs and expanding the eligibility for that or to provide funding directly to ratepayers instead of intervening in the energy market in this way," he said.

The premier's office said that no one was available when asked about an interview on Tuesday.

"The letter speaks for itself," the office responded.

Nova Scotia Power issued a statement Tuesday. It did not directly address Houston's claims.

"The settlement agreement is now with the NS Utility and Review Board," the utility said.

"The UARB process is designed to ensure customers are represented with strong advocates and independent oversight. The UARB will determine whether the settlement results in just and reasonable rates and is in the public interest."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Key Points

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

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

✅ Reduces natural gas dependence and peaker emissions

✅ Advanced reactors enhance safety, flexibility, and cost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The U.S. Backs Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technology

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

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

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

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

Europe Could See Rising Emissions Without Nuclear Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Industrial Electricity Pricing Reforms aim to cut regulatory burden for industrial ratepayers through an energy concierge service, IESO billing reviews, GA estimation enhancements, clearer peak demand data, and contract cost savings.

Key Points

Measures to reduce industrial power costs via an energy concierge, IESO and GA reviews, and better peak demand data.

✅ Energy concierge eases pricing and connection inquiries

✅ IESO to simplify bills and refine GA estimation

✅ Real-time peak data and contract savings under review

Ontario's government is pursuing burden reduction measures for industrial electricity ratepayers, including legislation to lower rates to help businesses compete, and stimulate growth and investment.

Over the next year, Ontario will help industrial electricity ratepayers focus on their businesses instead of their electricity management practices by establishing an energy concierge service to provide businesses with better customer service and easier access to information about electricity pricing and changes for electricity consumers as well as connection processes.

Ontario is also tasking the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) to review and report back on its billing, settlement and customer service processes, building on initiatives such as electricity auctions that aim to reduce costs.

Improve and simplify industrial electricity bills, including clarifying the recovery rate that affects charges;

Review how the monthly Global Adjustment (GA) charge is estimated and identify potential enhancements related to cost allocation across classes; and,

Improve peak demand data publication processes and assess the feasibility of using real-time data to determine the factors that allocate GA costs to consumers.

Further, as part of the government's continued effort to finding efficiencies in the electricity system, Ontario is also directing IESO to review generation contracts to find opportunities for cost savings.

These measures are based on industry feedback received during extensive industrial electricity price consultations held between April and July 2019, which underscored how high electricity rates have impacted factories across the province.

"Our government is focused on finding workable electricity pricing solutions that will provide the greatest benefit to Ontario," said Greg Rickford, Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines. "Reducing regulatory burden on businesses can free up resources that can then be invested in areas such as training, new equipment and job creation."

The government is also in the process of developing further changes to industrial electricity pricing policy, amid planned rate increases announced by the OEB, informed by what was heard during the industrial electricity price consultations.

"It's important that we get this right the first time," said Minister Rickford. "That's why we're taking a thoughtful approach and listening carefully to what businesses in Ontario have to say."

Helping industrial ratepayers is part of the government's balanced and prudent plan to build Ontario together through ensuring our province is open for business and building a more transparent and accountable electricity system.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric power market crisis highlights grid reliability risks as coal and nuclear retire amid subsidies, mandates, and cheap natural gas; intermittent wind and solar raise blackout concerns, resilience costs, and pricing distortions across regulated markets.

Key Points

Reliability and cost risks as coal and nuclear retire; subsidies distort prices; intermittent renewables strain grid.

✅ Coal and nuclear retirements reduce baseload capacity

✅ Subsidies and mandates distort market pricing signals

✅ Intermittent renewables increase blackout and grid risk

Is anyone paying any attention to the crisis that is going on in our electric power markets?

Over the past six months at least four major nuclear power plants have been slated for shutdown, including the last one in operation in California. Meanwhile, dozens of coal plants have been shuttered as well — despite low prices and cleaner coal. Some of our major coal companies may go into bankruptcy.

This is a dangerous game we are playing here with our most valuable resource — outside of clean air and water. Traditionally, we've received almost half our electric power nationwide from coal and nuclear power, and for good reason. They are cheap sources of power and they are highly resilient and reliable.

The disruption to coal and nuclear power wouldn't be disturbing if this were happening as a result of market forces. That's only partially the case.

#google#

The amazing shale oil and gas revolution is providing Americans with cheap gas for home heating and power generation. Hooray. The price of natural gas has fallen by nearly two-thirds over the last decade and this has put enormous price pressure on other forms of power generation.

But this is not a free-market story of Schumpeterian creative destruction. If it were, then wind and solar power would have been shutdown years ago. They can't possibly compete on a level playing field with $3 natural gas.

In most markets solar and wind power survive purely because the states mandate that as much as 30 percent of residential and commercial power come from these sources. The utilities have to buy it regardless of price, even as electricity demand is flat in many regions. What a sweet deal. The California state legislature just mandated that every new home spend $10,000 on solar panels on the roof.

Well over $100 billion of subsidies to big wind and big solar were doled out over the last decade, and even with the avalanche of taxpayer subsidies and bailout funds many of these companies like Solyndra (which received $500 million in handouts) failed, underscoring why a green revolution hasn't materialized as promised.

These industries are not anywhere close to self sufficiency. In 2017 amid utility trends to watch the wind industry admitted that without a continuation of a multi-billion tax credit, the wind turbines would stop turning.

This combines with the left's war on coal through regulations that have destroyed coal plants in many areas. (Thank goodness for the exports of coal or the industry would be in much bigger trouble.)

Bottom line: Our power market is a Soviet central planner's dream come true and it is extinguishing our coal and nuclear industries.

Why should anyone care?

First, because government subsidies, regulations and mandates make electric power more expensive. Natural gas prices have fallen by two-thirds, but electric power costs have still risen in most areas — thanks to the renewable mandates.

More importantly, the electric power market isn't accurately pricing in the value of resilience and reliability. What is the value of making sure the lights don't go off? What is the cost to the economy and human health if we have rolling brownouts and blackouts because the aging U.S. grid doesn't have enough juice during peak demand.

Politicians, utilities and federal regulators are shortsightedly killing our coal and nuclear capacities without considering the risk of future energy shortages and power disruptions. Once a nuclear plant is shutdown, you can't just fire it back up again when you need it.

Wind and solar are notoriously unreliable. Most places where wind power is used, coal plants are needed to back up the system during peak energy use and when the wind isn't blowing.

The first choice to fix energy markets is to finally end the tangled web of layers and layers of taxpayer subsidies and mandates and let the market choose. Alas, that's nearly impossible given the political clout of big wind and solar.

The second best solution is for the regulators and utilities to take into account the grid reliability and safety of our energy. Would people be willing to pay a little more for their power to ensure against brownouts? I sure would. The cost of having too little energy far exceeds the cost of having too much.

A glass of water costs pennies, but if you're in a desert dying of thirst, that water may be worth thousands of dollars.

I'll admit I'm not sure what the best solution is to the power plant closures. But if we have major towns and cities in the country without electric power for stretches of time because of green energy fixation, Americans are going to be mighty angry and our economy will take a major hit.

When our manufacturers, schools, hospitals, the internet and iPhones shut down, we're not going to think wind and solar power are so chic.

If the lights start to go out five or 10 years from now, we will look back at what is happening today and wonder how we could have been so darn stupid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Managed Decline of Fossil Fuels aligns oil phaseout with carbon neutrality, leveraging ZEV adoption, solar and wind growth, severance taxes, drilling setbacks, fracking oversight, CARB rules, and CalGEM regulation to deliver a just transition.

Key Points

California's strategy to phase out oil and gas while meeting carbon-neutral goals through policy, regulation, and equity.

✅ Severance taxes fund clean energy and workforce transition.

✅ Setbacks restrict drilling near schools, homes, and hospitals.

✅ CARB and CalGEM tighten fracking oversight and ZEV targets.

California’s energy past is on a collision course with its future. Think of major oil-producing U.S. states, and Texas, Alaska or North Dakota probably come to mind. Although its position relative to other states has been falling for 20 years, California remains the seventh-largest oil-producing state, with 162 million barrels of crude coming up in 2018, translating to tax revenue and jobs.

At the same time, California leads the nation in solar rooftops and electric vehicles on the road by a wide margin and ranking fifth in installed wind capacity. Clean energy is the state’s future, and the state is increasingly exporting its energy policies across the West, influencing regional markets. By law, California must have 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045, and an executive order signed by former Governor Jerry Brown calls for economywide carbon-neutrality by the same year.

So how can the state reconcile its divergent energy path? How should clean-energy-minded lawmakers wind down California’s oil and gas sector in a way that aligns with the state’s long-term climate targets while providing a just transition for the industry’s workforce?

Any efforts to reduce fossil fuel supply must run parallel to aggressive demand-reduction measures such as California’s push to have 5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2030, said Ethan Elkind, director of Berkeley Law's climate program, especially amid debates over keeping the lights on without fossil fuels in the near term. After all, if oil demand in California remains strong, crude from outside the state will simply fill the void.

“If we don’t stop using it, then that supply is going to get here, even if it’s not produced in-state,” Elkind said in an interview.

Lawmakers have a number of options for policies that would draw down and eventually phase out fossil fuel production in California, according to a new report from the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment at the UC Berkeley School of Law, co-authored by Elkind and Ted Lamm.

They could impose a higher price on California's oil production through a "severance" tax or carbon-based fee, with the revenue directed to measures that wean the state from fossil fuels. (California, alone among major oil-producing states, does not have an oil severance tax.)

Lawmakers could establish a minimum drilling setback from schools, playgrounds, homes and other sensitive sites. They could push the state's oil and gas regulator, the California Geologic Energy Management Division, to prioritize environmental and climate concerns.

A major factor holding lawmakers back is, of course, politics, including debates over blackouts and climate policy that shape public perception. Given the state’s clean-energy ambitions, it might surprise non-Californians that the oil and gas industry is one of the Golden State’s most powerful special interest groups.

Overcoming a "third-rail issue" in California politics
The Western States Petroleum Association, the sector’s trade group in California's capital of Sacramento, spent $8.8 million lobbying state policymakers in 2019, more than any other interest group. Over the last five years, the group, which cultivates both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, has spent $43.3 million on lobbying, nearly double the total of the second-largest lobbying spender.

Despite former Governor Brown’s reputation as a climate champion, critics say he was unwilling to forcefully take on the oil and gas industry. However, things may take a different turn under Brown's successor, Governor Gavin Newsom.

In May 2019, when Newsom released California's midyear budget revision (PDF), the governor's office noted the need for "careful study and planning to decrease demand and supply of fossil fuels, while managing the decline in a way that is economically responsible and sustainable.”

Related reliability concerns surfaced as blackouts revealed lapses in power supply across the state.

Writing for the advocacy organization Oil Change International, David Turnbull observed, “This may mark the first time that a sitting governor in California has recognized the need to embark upon a managed decline of fossil fuel supply in the state.”

“It is significant because typically this is one of those third-rail issues, kind of a hot potato that governors don’t even want to touch at all — including Jerry Brown, to a large extent, who really focused much more on the demand side of fuel consumption in the state,” said Berkeley Law’s Elkind.

California's revised budget included $1.5 million for a Transition to a Carbon-Neutral Economy report, which is being prepared by University of California researchers for the California Environmental Protection Agency. In an email, a CalEPA spokesperson said the report is due by the end of this year.

Winding down oil and gas production
Since the release of the revised budget last May, Newsom has taken initial steps to increase oversight of the oil and gas industry. In July 2019, he fired the state’s top oil and gas regulator for issuing too many permits to hydraulically fracture, or frack, wells.

Later in the year, he appointed new leadership to oversee oil and gas regulation in the state, and he signed a package of bills that placed constraints on fossil fuel production. The next month, Newsom halted the approval of new fracking operations until pending permits could be reviewed by a panel of scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) did not resume issuing fracking permit approvals until April of this year.

Not all steps have been in the same direction. This month Newsom dropped a proposal to add dozens of analysts, engineers and geologists at CalGEM, citing COVID-related economic pressure. The move would have increased regulatory oversight on fossil fuel producers and was opposed by the state's oil industry.

Ultimately, more durable measures to wind down fossil fuel supply and demand will require new legislation, even as regulators weigh whether the state needs more power plants to maintain reliability.

A 2019 bill by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance), AB 345, would have codified the minimum 2,500-foot setback for new oil and gas wells. However, before the final vote in the Assembly, the bill’s buffer requirement was dropped and replaced with a requirement for CalGEM “to consider a setback distance of 2,500 feet.” The bill passed the Assembly in January over "no" votes from several moderate Democrats; it now awaits action in the Senate.

A bill previously introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), AB 1745, didn’t even make it that far. Ting’s bill would have required that all new passenger cars registered in the state after January 1, 2040, be zero-emission vehicles (ZEV). The bill died in committee without a vote in April 2018.

But the backing of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), one of the world's most powerful air-quality regulators, could change the political conversation. In March, CARB chair Mary Nichols said she now supports consideration of California establishing a 100 percent zero-emission vehicle sales target by 2030, as policymakers also consider a revamp of electricity rates to clean the grid.

“In the past, I’ve been skeptical about whether that would do more harm than good in terms of the backlash by dealers and others against something that sounded so un-California like,” Nichols said during an online event. “But as time has gone on, I’ve become more convinced that we need to send the longer-term signal about where we’re headed.”

Another complicating factor for California’s political leaders is the lack of a willing federal partner — at least in the short term — in winding down oil and gas production, amid warnings about a looming electricity shortage that could pressure the grid.

Under the Trump administration, the Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 15 million acres of federal land in California, has pushed to open more than 1 million acres of public and private land across eight counties in Central California to fracking. In January 2020, California filed a federal lawsuit to block the move.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News