Octillion advances efforts to generate power from moving vehicles

Alaska Coal-Fired CHP Plant opens near Usibelli mine, supplying electricity and district heat to UAF; remote location without gas pipelines, low wind and solar potential, and high heating demand shaped fuel choice.

Key Points

A 17 MW coal CHP at UAF producing power and campus heat, chosen for remoteness and lack of gas pipelines.

✅ 17 MW generator supplying electricity and district heat

✅ Near Usibelli mine; limited pipeline access shapes fuel

✅ Alternative options like LNG, wind, solar not cost-effective

One way to boost coal in the US: Find a spot near a mine with no access to oil or natural gas pipelines, where it’s not particularly windy and it’s dark much of the year.

That’s how the first coal-fired plant to open in the U.S. since 2015 bucked the trend in an industry that’s seen scores of facilities close in recent years. A 17-megawatt generator, built for $245 million, is set to open in April at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, just 100 miles from the state’s only coal mine.

“Geography really drove what options are available to us,” said Kari Burrell, the university’s vice chancellor for administrative services, in an interview. “We are not saying this is ideal by any means.”

The new plant is arriving as coal fuels about 25 percent of electrical generation in the U.S., down from 45 percent a decade earlier, even as some forecasts point to a near-term increase in coal-fired generation in 2021. A near-record 18 coal plants closed in 2018, and 14 more are expected to follow this year, according to BloombergNEF.

The biggest bright spot for U.S. coal miners recently has been exports to overseas power plants. At home, one of the few growth areas has been in pizza ovens.

There are a handful of other U.S. coal power projects that have been proposed, including plans to build an 850 megawatt facility in Georgia and an 895 megawatt plant in Kansas, even as a Minnesota utility reports declining coal returns across parts of its portfolio. But Ashley Burke, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, said she’s unaware of any U.S. plants actively under development besides the one in Alaska.

Future of power

“The future of power in the U.S. does not include coal,” Tessie Petion, an analyst for HSBC Holdings Plc, said in a research note, a view echoed by regions such as Alberta retiring coal power early in their transition.

Fairbanks sits on the banks of the Chena River, amid the vast subarctic forests in the heart of Alaska. The oil and gas fields of the state’s North slope are 500 miles north. The nearest major port is in Anchorage, 350 miles south.

The university’s new plant is a combined heat and power generator, which will create steam both to generate electricity and heat campus buildings. Before opting for coal, the school looked into using liquid natural gas, wind and solar, bio-mass and a host of other options, as new projects in Southeast Alaska seek lower electricity costs across the region. None of them penciled out, said Mike Ruckhaus, a senior project manager at the university.

The project, financed with university and state-municipal bonds, replaces a coal plant that went into service in 1964. University spokeswoman Marmian Grimes said it’s worth noting that the new plant will emit fewer emissions.

The coal will come from Usibelli Coal Mine Inc., a family-owned business that produces between 1.2 and 2 million tons per year from a mine along the Alaska railroad, according to the company’s website.

While any new plant is good news for coal miners, Clarksons Platou Securities Inc. analyst Jeremy Sussman said this one is "an isolated situation."

“We think the best producers can hope for domestically is a slow down in plant closures,” he said, even as jurisdictions like Alberta close their last coal plant entirely.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EU Nuclear Reactor Life Extension focuses on energy security, carbon-free electricity, and safety as ageing reactors face gas shortages, high power prices, and regulatory approvals across the UK and EU amid winter supply risks.

Key Points

EU Nuclear Reactor Life Extension is the policy to keep ageing reactors safely generating affordable, low-carbon power.

✅ Extends reactor operation via inspections and component upgrades

✅ Addresses gas shortages, price volatility, and winter supply risks

✅ Requires national regulator approval and cost-benefit analysis

Shaken by the loss of Russian natural gas since the invasion of Ukraine, European countries are questioning whether they can extend the lives of their ageing nuclear reactors to maintain the supply of affordable, carbon-free electricity needed for net-zero across the bloc — but national regulators, companies and governments disagree on how long the atomic plants can be safely kept running.

Europe avoided large-scale blackouts last winter despite losing its largest supplier of natural gas, and as Germany temporarily extended nuclear operations to bolster stability, but industry is still grappling with high electricity prices and concerns about supply.

Given warnings from the International Energy Agency that the coming winters will be particularly at risk from a global gas shortage, governments have turned their attention to another major energy source — even as some officials argue nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue in the near term — that would exacerbate the problem if it too is disrupted: Europe’s ageing fleet of nuclear power plants.

Nuclear accounts for nearly 10% of energy consumed in the European Union, with transport, industry, heating and cooling traditionally relying on coal, oil and natural gas.

Historically nuclear has provided about a quarter of EU electricity and 15% of British power, even as Germany shut down its last three nuclear plants recently, underscoring diverging national paths.

Taken together, the UK and EU have 109 nuclear reactors running, even as Europe is losing nuclear power in several markets, most of which were built in the 1970s and 1980s and were commissioned to last about 30 years.

That means 95 of those reactors — nearly 90% of the fleet — have passed or are nearing the end of their original lifespan, igniting debates over how long they can safely continue to be granted operating extensions, with some arguing it remains a needed nuclear option for climate goals despite age-related concerns.

Regulations differ across borders, with some countries such as Germany turning its back on nuclear despite an ongoing energy crisis, but life extension discussions are usually a once-a-decade affair involving physical inspections, cost/benefit estimates for replacing major worn-out parts, legislative amendments, and approval from the national nuclear safety authority.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Electricity Price Surge reflects soaring wholesale rates, natural gas spikes, carbon tax pressures, and grid decarbonization challenges amid cold-weather demand, constrained supply, and Europe-style energy crisis impacts across the province.

Key Points

An exceptional jump in Alberta's power costs driven by gas price spikes, high demand, policy costs, and tight supply.

✅ Wholesale prices averaged $123/MWh in December

✅ Gas costs surged; supply constraints and outages

✅ Carbon tax and decarbonization policies raised costs

Albertans just endured the highest electricity prices in 21 years. Wholesale prices averaged $123 per megawatt-hour in December, more than triple the level from the previous year and highest for December since 2000.

The situation in Alberta mirrors the energy crisis striking Europe where electricity prices are also surging, largely due to a shocking five-fold increase in natural gas prices in 2021 compared to the prior year.

The situation should give pause to Albertans when they consider aggressive plans to “decarbonize” the electric grid, including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 from some policymakers.

The explanation for skyrocketing energy prices is simple: increased demand (because of Calgary's frigid February demand and a slowly-reviving post-pandemic economy) coupled with constrained supply.

In the nitty gritty details, there are always particular transitory causes, such as disputes with Russian gas companies (in the case of Europe) or plant outages (in the case of Alberta).

But beyond these fleeting factors, there are more permanent systemic constraints on natural gas (and even more so, coal-fired) power plants.

I refer of course to the climate change policies of the Trudeau government at the federal level and some of the more aggressive provincial governments, which have notable implications for electricity grids across Canada.

The most obvious example is the carbon tax, the repeal of which Premier Jason Kenney made a staple of his government.

Putting aside the constitutional issues (on which the Supreme Court ruled in March of last year that the federal government could impose a carbon tax on Alberta), the obvious economic impact will be to make carbon-sourced electricity more expensive.

This isn’t a bug or undesired side-effect, it’s the explicit purpose of a carbon tax.

Right now, the federal carbon tax is $40 per tonne, is scheduled to increase to $50 in April, and will ultimately max out at a whopping $170 per tonne in 2030.

Again, the conscious rationale of the tax, aligned with goals for cleaning up Canada's electricity, is to make coal, oil and natural gas more expensive to induce consumers and businesses to use alternative energy sources.

As Albertans experience sticker shock this winter, they should ask themselves — do we want the government intentionally making electricity and heating oil more expensive?

Of course, the proponent of a carbon tax (and other measures designed to shift Canadians away from carbon-based fuels) would respond that it’s a necessary measure in the fight against climate change, and that Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA.

Yet the reality is that Canada is a bit player on the world stage when it comes to carbon dioxide, responsible for only 1.5% of global emissions (as of 2018).

As reported at this “climate tracker” website, if we look at the actual policies put in place by governments around the world, they’re collectively on track for the Earth to warm 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, far above the official target codified in the Paris Agreement.

Canadians can’t do much to alter the global temperature, but federal and provincial governments can make energy more expensive if policymakers so choose, and large-scale electrification could be costly—the Canadian Gas Association warns of $1.4 trillion— if pursued rapidly.

As renewable technologies become more reliable and affordable, business and consumers will naturally adopt them; it didn’t take a “manure tax” to force people to use cars rather than horses.

As official policy continues to make electricity more expensive, Albertans should ask if this approach is really worth it, or whether options like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap could better balance costs.

Robert P. Murphy is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Ontario COVID-19 Business Tax Relief outlines permanent Employer Health Tax exemptions, lower Business Education Tax rates, optional municipal property tax cuts, and hydro bill subsidies to support small businesses, industrial and commercial recovery.

Key Points

A provincial package of tax breaks and hydro subsidies to help small, industrial, and commercial businesses recover.

✅ Permanent Employer Health Tax exemption to $1M payroll

✅ Lower Business Education Tax rates for 94% of firms

✅ Hydro subsidies cut medium-large rates by 14-16%

The Ontario government's latest plan to help businesses survive and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic includes a suite of new tax breaks for small businesses and $1.3 billion to subsidize electricity bills for industrial and commercial operations.

The new measures were announced Thursday as part of Ontario's 2020 budget, which sets new provincial records for both spending and deficit projections.

The government of Premier Doug Ford says the budget will address barriers impeding long-term growth, ensuring the province forges a path to a full recovery from the pandemic.

"When the pandemic is over, Ontario will come back with a vengeance, stronger and more prosperous than ever before," Ford said at an afternoon news conference.

Small businesses with payrolls under $1 million will no longer have to pay the Employer Health Tax. The province temporarily raised the exemption from $490,000 to $1 million earlier this year, but the government is now making the change permanent.

The higher exemption means that about 90 per cent of Ontario businesses will no longer have to pay the tax, amounting to about $360 million by 2022, according to the province.

"We have heard from employers across Ontario that this measure helped them keep workers on the job during COVID-19," Finance Minister Rod Phillips told the legislature.

The 2020 budget lowers rates for the Business Education Tax (BET), a property tax earmarked for public education. More than 200,000 Ontario businesses, or 94 per cent, will see a lower rate.

"I believe this budget takes some significant initial steps to help stabilize the economy and help businesses, especially small businesses," said Toronto Mayor John Tory in a statement. Tory's office estimates that reductions to the BET will result in $117 million in lower taxes for commercial properties in Canada's largest city.

Municipal governments will also be permitted to reduce property taxes for small businesses, should they choose to do so. The province says it will "consider matching these reductions," which could amount to $385 million in tax relief by 2023.

Finance Minister Rod Phillips tabled the largest spending plan in Ontario history on Thursday afternoon. (Frank Gunn/The Canadian Press)
Municipalities currently have few options to provide targeted relief to local businesses. Guelph Mayor Cam Guthrie, chair of Ontario's Big City Mayors, said the prospect of lowering property taxes will likely be welcomed by local governments across the province.

"I really am looking forward to looking into that because it would give targeted relief to these businesses that have been asking for something from local governments for the past nine months," he said in an interview.

Tax cuts 'won't help a boarded up business,' NDP says
The 2020 budget does not contain any new direct funding for small businesses or their employees. NDP leader Andrea Horwath, who has proposed to make hydro public again, said those types of funding would help businesses more than potential tax reductions.

"A future hydro or tax cut won't help a boarded up business and it certainly won't help the folks that used to work there," Horwath said.

"Those measures are great if you're a company that's doing really well ... but let's face it, main streets across Ontario are crumbling."

Ontario did reveal on Thursday more details about a previously announced $300-million fund to support businesses in Toronto, Ottawa, Peel Region and York Region, which were placed under modified Stage 2 restrictions this fall. The money can be used to cover property taxes and energy bills for eligible businesses.

In a similar move, B.C. provided a three-month break on electricity bills for residents and businesses during the pandemic.

An undetermined amount of the $300 million will also be made available to businesses that are placed under "control" and "lockdown" rules, which are the two most severe restrictions in the province's updated reopening guidelines announced in October.

No regions are currently under these restrictions.

Elsewhere, B.C. saw commercial electricity consumption plummet during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Government to subsidize hydro bills for industrial businesses
The Ford government, which earlier oversaw a Hydro One leadership overhaul, is also taking aim at what it calls "job-killing electricity prices" in Ontario's industrial and commercial sectors.

The budget includes a $1.3 billion investment over three years to subsidize their hydro bills, a move praised by Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters as supportive of industry, which the province says have been inflated due to contracts signed by the previous Liberal government to purchase electricity generated by wind, solar and bioenergy.

"This is the legacy that is making our businesses uncompetitive," Phillips told reporters Thursday afternoon.

Ontario says its $1.3-billion investment to subsidize electricity bills will offset expensive contracts for green energy signed by the previous Liberal government. (Patrick Pleul/dpa via Associated Press)
The investment will lower rates for medium- and large-sized business by between 14 and 16 per cent, and follows an OEB decision on Hydro One rates that affects transmission and distribution costs, according to Ontario's calculations. Phillips said those rates will be among the lowest of any jurisdiction in the Great Lakes region.

The provincial government said the investment is necessary for Ontario to recover from the COVID-19 downturn. The Ford government expects that no further subsidies will be required by around 2040.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

New Mexico Energy Transition Act advances zero-carbon electricity, mandating public utilities deliver carbon-free electricity by 2045, with renewable targets of 50 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2040 to accelerate grid decarbonization.

Key Points

A state law requiring utilities to deliver carbon-free electricity by 2045, with 2030 and 2040 renewable targets.

✅ 100 percent carbon-free power from utilities by 2045

✅ Interim renewable targets: 50 percent by 2030, 80 percent by 2040

✅ Aligns with clean energy commitments in HI, CA, and DC

The New Mexico House of Representatives passed the Energy Transition Act Tuesday afternoon, sending the carbon-free electricity bill, a move aligned with proposals for a Clean Electricity Standard at the federal level, to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.

Her opinions on it are known: she campaigned on raising the share of renewable energy, a priority echoed in many state renewable ambitions nationwide, and endorsed the ETA in a recent column.

"The governor will sign the bill as quickly as possible — we're hoping it is enrolled and engrossed and sent to her desk by Friday," spokesperson Tripp Stelnicki said in an email Tuesday afternoon.

Once signed, the legislation will commit the state to achieving zero-carbon electricity from public utilities by 2045. The bill also imposes interim renewable energy targets of 50 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2040, similar to Minnesota's 2040 carbon-free bill in its timeline.

The Senate passed the bill last week, 32-9. The House passed it 43-22.

The legislation would enter New Mexico into the company of Hawaii, California, where climate risks to grid reliability are shaping policy, and Washington, D.C., which have committed to eliminating carbon emissions from their grids. A dozen other states have proposed similar goals. Meanwhile, the Green New Deal resolution has prompted Congress to discuss the bigger task of decarbonizing the nation overall.

Though grid decarbonization has surged in the news cycle in recent months, even as some states consider moves in the opposite direction, such as a Wyoming bill restricting clean energy that would limit utility choices, New Mexico's bill arose from a years-long effort to rally stakeholders within the state's close-knit political community.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News