Obama admin circulated plan to revamp Energy Dept.

Millstone COVID-19 safety concerns center on a nuclear refueling outage in Connecticut, temporary workers, OSHA complaints, PPE shortages, and disinfecting protocols, as Dominion Energy addresses virus precautions, staffing, and cybersecurity for safe voting infrastructure.

Key Points

Employee and union claims about PPE, cleaning, and OSHA compliance during a refueling outage at the nuclear plant.

✅ 10 positive cases; 750 temporary workers during refueling outage

✅ Union cites PPE gaps, partitions, and disinfectant effectiveness

✅ Dominion Energy notes increased cleaning, communication, staffing

Workers at Connecticut's only nuclear power plant worry that managers are not taking enough precautions against the coronavirus, as some utilities weigh on-site staffing measures to maintain operations, after 750 temporary employees were brought in to help refuel one of the two active reactors.

Ten employees at the Millstone Power Station in Waterford have tested positive for the virus, and, amid a U.S. grid pandemic warning, the arrival of the temporary workers alarms some of the permanent employees, The Day newspaper reported Sunday.

"Speaking specifically for the guard force, there's a lot of frustration, there's a lot of concern, and I would say there's anger," said Millstone security officer Jim Foley.

Foley, vice president of the local chapter of the United Government Security Officers of America, noted broader labor concerns such as unpaid wages for Kentucky miners while saying security personnel have had to fight for personal protective equipment and for partitions at access points to separate staff from security.

Foley also has filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration saying Millstone staff are using ineffective cleaning materials and citing a lack of cleaning and sanitizing, as telework limits at the EPA drew scrutiny during the pandemic, he said.

Officials at Millstone, owned by Dominion Energy, have not heard internal criticism about the plant's virus precautions, Millstone spokesman Kenneth Holt said.

"We've actually gotten a lot of compliments from employees on the steps we've taken," he said. "We've stepped up communications with employees to let them know what's going on."

As another example of communication efforts, COVID-19 updates at Site C have been published to keep workers informed.

Millstone recently increased cleaning staff on the weekends, Holt said, and there is regular disinfecting at the plant.

Separately, utility resilience remains a concern, as extended outages for tornado survivors in Kentucky may last weeks, affecting essential services.

Responding to the complaint about ineffective cleaning materials, Holt said staff members early in the pandemic went to a Home Depot and got a bottle of disinfectant that wasn't approved by the federal government as effective against the coronavirus. An approved disinfectant was brought in the next day, he said.

The deaths of nearly 2,500 Connecticut residents have been linked to COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus. More than 29,000 state residents have tested positive. As of Sunday, hospitalizations had declined for 11 consecutive days, to over 1,480.

With more people working remotely, utilities have reported higher residential electricity use during the pandemic, affecting household bills.

For most people, the coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough, that clear up in two to three weeks. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia, and death.

In other developments related to the coronavirus:

SAFE VOTING

Secretary of the State Denise Merrill released a plan Monday aimed at making voting safe during the Aug. 11 primary and Nov. 3 general election.

Merrill said her office is requiring all cities and towns in the state to submit plans for the two elections that include a list of cleaning and safety products to be used, a list of polling locations, staffing levels at each polling location, and the names of polling workers and moderators.

Municipalities will be eligible for grants to cover the extra costs of holding elections during a pandemic, including expenses for cleaning products and increased staffing.

Merrill also announced her office and the Connecticut National Guard will perform a high-level cybersecurity assessment of the election infrastructure of all 169 towns in the state to guard against malicious actors.

Merrill's office also will provide network upgrades to the election infrastructures of 20 towns that have had chronic problems with connecting to the elections system.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety 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

Jersey Electricity Standby Charge proposes a grid-backup fee for commercial self-generators of renewable energy, with a review delaying implementation; potential tariff impacts include 10-15 percent price rises, cost recovery, and network reliability.

Key Points

A grid-backup fee for Jersey self-generating businesses to share network costs fairly and curb electricity price rises.

✅ Applies to commercial self-generation using renewables or not

✅ Excludes full exporters and pre-charge installations

✅ Aims to recover grid costs and avoid 10-15% price rises

Electricity prices could rise by ten to 15 per cent if a standby charge for some commercial customers is not implemented, the chief executive of Jersey Electricity has warned.

Jersey Electricity has proposed extending a monthly fee to commercial customers who generate their own power through renewable means but still wish to be connected to Jersey’s grid as a back-up, echoing Ontario energy storage efforts to shore up reliability.

The States recently unanimously backed a proposal lodged by Deputy Carolyn Labey to delay administering the levy until a review could be carried out, as seen in the UK grid's net-zero transformation debates influencing policy. The charge, was due to be implemented next month but will now not be introduced until May, or later if the review has not concluded.

But Chris Ambler, JE chief executive, warned that failing to implement the standby charge could lead to additional costs for customers.

Some of JE’s commercial customers have already been charged a standby fee after generating their own power through non-renewable means.

The charge does not apply to businesses which export all of their electricity back into the system as part of a buy-back scheme or those which install self-generation facilities before the charge is implemented.

Deputy Labey argued that the Island had done ‘absolutely nothing’ to support the use of renewable energies and instead were discouraging locally generated power by allowing JE to set a standby charge.

She added that she was pleased that the Council of Ministers had already starting reviewing the charges but the debate needed to go ahead to ensure the work continued after the May election.

During a States debate last month, she said: ‘It is increasingly concerning that we, as an island in the 21st century, are happy for our electricity to be provided to us by an unregulated, publicly listed for-profit company with a monopoly on energy.

‘I also think that introducing a charge on renewables at a time when the world is experiencing a revolution in renewable energies, including offshore vessel charging solutions, which are becoming increasingly economic, is something that needs to be investigated.

‘Jersey should be looking to diversify our electricity production and supply, to help protect us from price and currency fluctuations and to ensure that we, as an island, receive the best deal possible for Islanders.’

Mr Ambler said that any price increase would be dependent on the future take-up and use of renewable-energy technology in Jersey.

He said: ‘The cost impact would not be significant in the short term but in the long term it could be significant. I think that we are obliged to let our customers know that.

‘It is very difficult to assess but if we are not able to levy a fair charge, then, as electricity shortages in Canada have shown, we could see prices rise by ten to 15 per cent over time.’

Mr Ambler added that his company was in favour of the use of renewable energy, with a third of the company’s electricity being generated by hydroelectric sources, but that the costs of implementing it needed to be fairly distributed, given how big battery rule changes can affect project viability elsewhere in the market.

And he said that, while it was difficult to quantify how much could be lost if the standby charge was not implemented, it could cost the company over £10 million.

‘In 2014, we only increased our prices by one per cent,’ he said. ‘We are reviewing our prices at the moment but if we did put an increase in place it would be modest and it would not be linked to the standby charge.’

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

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

Key Points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

U.S. Climate Change Donation Survey reveals Americans' willingness to fund sustainability via government incentives, electrification, and renewable energy. Public opinion favors wind, solar, and decarbonization, highlighting policy support post-pandemic amid economic recovery efforts.

Key Points

A 2020 U.S. poll on climate attitudes: donation willingness, renewable support, and views on government incentives.

✅ 70% would donate income; 31% would donate nothing.

✅ 59% prefer government incentives; 47% support taxes, conservation.

✅ 85% land wind, 83% offshore wind, 90% solar support.

A new study of American consumers' attitudes toward climate change finds that more than two-thirds of respondents (70%) indicate their willingness to give or donate a percentage of their personal income to support the fight against climate change and the path to net-zero electricity emissions by mid-century. 

Twenty-eight percent indicated they were willing to provide less than 1% of their income; 33% said they would be willing to contribute 1-5% of their income; 6% said they would give between 6-10% of their income; and 3% indicated they would contribute more than 10% of their income. Just under one-third (31%) of those surveyed indicated they were unwilling to give or donate any percentage of their income to support the fight against climate change.

The U.S. findings are part of a series of surveys commissioned by Nexans in the U.S., UK and France, in order to determine public opinion on climate change and related issues in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The U.S. study was conducted online by Researchscape from August 20 – 24, 2020. It had 1,013 respondents, ages 18 or older, with the results weighted to be representative of the overall population (variables available upon request).

Nexans, is headquartered in Paris with a major offshore wind cable manufacturing facility in Charleston, S.C. and an industrial cable manufacturing facility in El Dorado, Ark. The company is fully committed to fighting climate change and is helping to make sustainable electrification possible. The survey was developed as part of its celebration of the first Climate Day in Paris which included a roundtable event with world-renowned experts, the release of an unprecedented global study by Roland Berger on the challenges raised by the electrification of the world, the question of whether the global energy transition is on track, and Nexans' own commitment to be carbon neutral by 2030.

Paying the Tab to Address Climate Change

Participants were given the opportunity to choose from seven multiple responses to the question "How should the fight against climate change be paid for?" The majority (59%) replied it should be paid for by "government incentives for both businesses and consumers." It was followed by "federal, state and/or local taxes" and "conservation programs" (tied at 47%); "business investments" (42%), such as carbon-free electricity initiatives, and "consumer-driven purchases" (33%). Just 9% selected none of the above and 2% selected other.

"Through the organization of this Climate Day, Nexans is asserting itself not only as an actor but also a thought leader of the energy transition for a sustainable electrification of the world. This electrification raises a number of challenges and paradoxes that must be overcome. And it will only happen with the direct involvement of the populations concerned. These surveys provide a better understanding of the level of information and disinformation, including climate change denial, in public opinion as well as their level of acceptability of these lifestyle changes," said Christopher Guérin, CEO, Nexans.

Among other findings, 44% are dissatisfied with the job that federal and state governments are doing to address climate change, while utilities like Duke Energy face investor pressure to release climate reports, 35% are somewhat satisfied and 21% are either very satisfied or completed satisfied with government's role.

Americans expressed overwhelmingly favorable views of wind and solar renewable energy proposals, as carbon emissions fall when electricity producers move away from coal. Specifically, 85% stated being in favor of wind turbines on land (15% against), 83% in favor of wind turbines off the coast (17% against) and 90% in support of solar panel farms (10% opposed).

Those surveyed were asked about their current and changing priorities towards climate change as influenced by the coronavirus pandemic and impacts like extreme heat on electricity bills. Thirty-nine percent indicated that climate change was no more and no less a priority due to the current health emergency; just under a third (31%) indicated that climate change is more of a priority while 30% said it was less of a priority.

In similar research conducted by Nexans in the United Kingdom, nearly two thirds (65.8%) of UK respondents said they would be willing to donate part of their salary to fight climate change. Furthermore, nearly a third (29%) of the UK's consumers believe that combating climate change has become more of a priority in light of the coronavirus pandemic. The UK research was conducted online by Savanta from August 21 – 24, 2020. A total of 2210 respondents, aged 16 and above, representative of the UK population took part.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Seattle City Light Energy Efficiency Programs help 93,000 residents cut bills with rebates, home energy audits, weatherization, conservation workshops, and sustainability tools, reducing electricity use and greenhouse gas emissions across Seattle communities.

Key Points

They are utility programs that lower electricity use and bills via rebates, energy audits, and weatherization services.

✅ Rebates for ENERGY STAR appliances and efficient HVAC upgrades

✅ Free audits with tailored recommendations and savings roadmaps

✅ Weatherization aid for low-income households and renters

In a noteworthy achievement for both residents and the environment, Seattle City Light has successfully helped more than 93,000 customers reduce their electricity bills through various energy efficiency programs. This initiative not only alleviates financial burdens for many households, amid concerns about pandemic-era shut-offs that heightened energy insecurity, but also aligns with the city’s commitment to sustainability and responsible energy use.

The Drive for Energy Efficiency

Seattle City Light, the city’s publicly owned electric utility, has been at the forefront of promoting energy efficiency among its customers. Recognizing that energy costs can strain household budgets, the utility has developed a range of programs and tracks emerging utility rate designs to help residents lower their energy consumption and, consequently, their bills.

One of the main aspects of this initiative is the emphasis on education and awareness. By providing customers with tools and resources to understand their energy usage, City Light empowers residents to make informed choices that can lead to substantial savings and prepare for power outage events as well.

Key Programs and Services

Seattle City Light offers a variety of programs aimed at reducing energy consumption. Among the most popular are:

1. Energy Efficiency Rebates: Customers can receive rebates for purchasing energy-efficient appliances, such as refrigerators, washing machines, and HVAC systems. These appliances are designed to consume less electricity than traditional models, resulting in lower energy bills over time.

2. Home Energy Audits: Free energy audits are available for residential customers. During these audits, trained professionals assess homes for energy efficiency and provide recommendations on improvements. This personalized service allows homeowners to understand specific changes that can lead to savings.

3. Weatherization Assistance: This program is particularly beneficial for low-income households. By improving insulation, sealing air leaks, and enhancing overall energy efficiency, residents can maintain comfortable indoor temperatures without over-relying on heating and cooling systems.

4. Community Workshops: Seattle City Light conducts workshops that educate residents about energy conservation strategies. These sessions cover topics such as smart energy use, seasonal tips for reducing consumption, and the benefits of renewable energy sources, highlighting examples of clean energy engagement in other cities.

The Impact on Households

The impact of these initiatives is profound. By assisting over 93,000 customers in lowering their electricity bills, Seattle City Light not only provides immediate financial relief but also encourages a long-term commitment to energy conservation. This collective effort has resulted in significant reductions in overall energy consumption, contributing to a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions—a critical step in the fight against climate change.

Additionally, the programs have been particularly beneficial for low-income households. By targeting these communities, Seattle City Light ensures that the benefits of energy efficiency reach those who need them the most, promoting equity-focused regulation and access to essential resources.

Looking Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities

While the success of these initiatives is commendable, challenges remain. Fluctuating energy prices can still pose difficulties for many households, especially those on fixed incomes, as some utilities explore minimum charges for low-usage customers in their rate structures. Seattle City Light recognizes the need for ongoing support and resources to help residents navigate these financial challenges.

The utility is committed to expanding its programs to reach even more customers in the future. This includes enhancing outreach efforts to ensure that residents are aware of the available resources, even as debates like utility revenue in a free-electricity future shape planning, and potentially forming partnerships with local organizations to broaden the impact of its initiatives.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News