'Rewards for Recycling' to divert 90 truckloads of material from landfill

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

Key Points

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

✅ Zero emissions credits vs market integrity

✅ Carbon pricing to value clean baseload power

✅ Closure risks jobs, tax revenue, and reliability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The end of the nuclear age?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strange bedfellows

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing the market

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Germany nuclear phase-out underscores a high-stakes energy transition, trading reactors for renewables, LNG imports, and grid resilience to secure supply, cut emissions, and navigate climate policy, public opinion shifts, and post-Ukraine supply shocks.

Key Points

Germany's nuclear phase-out retires reactors, shifting to renewables, LNG, and grid upgrades for low-carbon power.

✅ Last three reactors: Neckarwestheim, Isar 2, and Emsland closed

✅ Supply secured via LNG imports, renewables, and grid flexibility

✅ Policy accelerated post-Fukushima; debate renewed after Ukraine war

The German government is phasing out nuclear power despite the energy crisis. The country is pulling the plug on its last three reactors, betting it will succeed in its green transition without nuclear power.

On the banks of the Neckar River, not far from Stuttgart in south Germany, the white steam escaping from the nuclear power plant in Baden-Württemberg will soon be a memory.

The same applies further east for the Bavarian Isar 2 complex and the Emsland complex, at the other end of the country, not far from the Dutch border.

While many Western countries depend on nuclear power, Europe's largest economy is turning the page, even if a possible resurgence of nuclear energy is debated until the end.

Germany is implementing the decision to phase out nuclear power taken in 2002 and accelerated by Angela Merkel in 2011, after the Fukushima disaster.

Fukushima showed that "even in a high-tech country like Japan, the risks associated with nuclear energy cannot be controlled 100 per cent", the former chancellor justified at the time.

The announcement convinced public opinion in a country where the powerful anti-nuclear movement was initially fuelled by fears of a Cold War conflict, and then by accidents such as Chernobyl.

The invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 brought everything into question. Deprived of Russian gas, the flow of which was essentially interrupted by Moscow, Germany found itself exposed to the worst possible scenarios, from the risk of its factories being shut down to the risk of being without heating in the middle of winter.

With just a few months to go before the initial deadline for closing the last three reactors on 31 December, the tide of public opinion began to turn, and talk of a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout grew louder. 

"With high energy prices and the burning issue of climate change, there were of course calls to extend the plants," says Jochen Winkler, mayor of Neckarwestheim, where the plant of the same name is in its final days.

Olaf Scholz's government, which the Green Party - the most hostile to nuclear power - is part of, finally decided to extend the operation of the reactors to secure the supply until 15 April.

"There might have been a new discussion if the winter had been more difficult if there had been power cuts and gas shortages nationwide. But we have had a winter without too many problems," thanks to the massive import of liquefied natural gas, notes Mr Winkler.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ford Electric Transit is an all electric cargo van for US and Canada, launching 2021, with 4G LTE hotspot, fleet telematics, GPS tracking, and driver assistance safety tech; battery, range, and performance specs TBD.

Key Points

An all electric cargo van with fleet telematics, 4G LTE, and driver assistance features for US and Canada.

✅ 4G LTE hotspot, live GPS tracking, and diagnostics

✅ Fleet telematics and management tools for operations

✅ Driver assistance: AEB, lane keeping, and collision warning

Ford is making an all-electric version of its popular Transit cargo van for the US and Canadian markets, slated to be released in 2021, aligning with Ford’s EV manufacturing plans to scale production across North America. The company did not share any specifics about the van’s battery pack size, estimated range, or performance characteristics. Ford previously announced an electric Transit for the European market in 2019.

The new cargo van will come equipped with a 4G LTE hotspot and will be outfitted with a number of tech features designed for fleet managers, like live GPS tracking and diagnostics, mirroring moves by Volvo’s electric trucks aimed at connected operations. The electric Transit van will also be equipped with a number of Ford’s safety and driver assistance features, like collision warning and assist, automatic emergency braking, pedestrian detection, and automatic lane-keeping.

Ford said it didn’t have any news to share about an electric version of its Transit passenger van “at this time,” even as the market reaches an EV inflection point for adoption.

Ford’s Transit van is the bestselling cargo van in the US, though it has seen increased competition over the last few years from Mercedes-Benz, which recently refreshed its popular Sprinter van, while others pursue electrified freight like Tesla’s electric truck plans that expand options.

Mercedes-Benz has already unveiled an electric version of the Sprinter, which comes in two configurations, targeting delivery networks where UPS’s Tesla Semi orders signal growing demand. There’s a version with a 55kWh battery pack that can travel 168 kilometers (104 miles) on a full charge, and has a payload capacity of 891 kilograms (1,964 pounds). Mercedes-Benz is making a version with a smaller 41kWh battery pack that goes 115 kilometers (72 miles), but which can carry up to 1,045 (2,304 pounds). Both versions come with 10.5 cubic meters (370.8 cubic feet) of storage space.

Mercedes-Benz also announced the EQV concept a year ago, which is an electric van aimed at slightly more everyday use, reflecting broader people-moving trends as electric bus adoption faces hurdles worldwide. The company touted more promising specs with the slightly smaller EQV, saying it will get around 249 miles out of a 100kWh battery pack. Oh, and it has 200 horsepower on offer and will be equipped with the company’s MBUX infotainment system.

Another player in the space is EV startup Rivian, which will build 100,000 electric delivery vans for Amazon over the next few years. Ford has invested $500 million in Rivian, and the startup is helping build a luxury electric SUV for the automotive giant’s Lincoln brand, though the two van projects don’t seem to be related, as Ford and others also boost gas-electric hybrid strategies in the US. Ford is also collaborating with Volkswagen on commercial vans after the two companies formed a global alliance early last year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

IESO Fictitious Demand Error inflated HOEP in the Ontario electricity market, after embedded generation was mis-modeled; the OEB says double-counted load lifted wholesale prices and shifted costs via the Global Adjustment.

Key Points

An IESO modeling flaw that double-counted load, inflating HOEP and charges in Ontario's wholesale market.

✅ Double-counted unmetered load from embedded generation

✅ Inflated HOEP; shifted costs via Global Adjustment

✅ OEB flagged transparency; exporters paid more

For almost a year, the operator of Ontario’s electricity system erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing prices to spike and hundreds of millions of dollars in extra charges to consumers, according to the provincial energy regulator.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) also failed to tell anyone about the error once it noticed and fixed it.

The error likely added between $450 million and $560 million to hourly rates and other charges before it was fixed in April 2017, according to a report released this month by the Ontario Energy Board’s Market Surveillance Panel.

It did this by adding as much as 220 MW of “fictitious demand” to the market starting in May 2016, when the IESO started paying consumers who reduced their demand for power during peak periods. This involved the integration of small-scale embedded generation (largely made up of solar) into its wholesale model for the first time.

The mistake assumed maximum consumption at such sites without meters, and double-counted that consumption.

The OEB said the mistake particularly hurt exporters and some end-users, who did not benefit from a related reduction of a global adjustment rate applicable to other customers.

“The most direct impact of the increase in HOEP (Hourly Ontario Energy Price) was felt by Ontario consumers and exporters of electricity, who paid an artificially high HOEP, to the benefit of generators and importers,” the OEB said.

The mix-up did not result in an equivalent increase in total system costs, because changes to the HOEP are offset by inverse changes to a electricity cost allocation mechanism such as the Global Adjustment rate, the OEB noted.

A chart from the OEB's report shows the time of day when fictitious demand was added to the system, and its influence on hourly rates.

Peak time spikes
The OEB said that the fictitious demand “regularly inflated” the hourly price of energy and other costs calculated as a direct function of it.

For almost a year, Ontario's electricity system operator @IESO_Tweets erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing price spikes and hundreds of millions in charges to consumers, @OntEnergyBoard says. @5thEstate reports.

It estimated the average increase to the HOEP was as much as $4.50/MWh, but that price spikes, compounded by scheduled OEB rate changes, would have been much higher during busier times, such as the mid-morning and early evening.

“In times of tight supply, the addition of fictitious demand often had a dramatic inflationary impact on the HOEP,” the report said.

That meant on one summer evening in 2016 the hourly rate jumped to $1,619/MWh, it said, which was the fourth highest in the history of the Ontario wholesale electricity market.

“Additional demand is met by scheduling increasingly expensive supply, thus increasing the market price. In instances where supply is tight and the supply stack is steep, small increases in demand can cause significant increases in the market price.

The OEB questioned why, as of September this year, the IESO had failed to notify its customers or the broader public, amid a broader auditor-regulator dispute that drew political attention, about the mistake and its effect on prices.

“It's time for greater transparency on where electricity costs are really coming from,” said Sarah Buchanan, clean energy program manager at Environmental Defence.

“Ontario will be making big decisions in the coming years about whether to keep our electricity grid clean, or burn more fossil fuels to keep the lights on,” she added. “These decisions need to be informed by the best possible evidence, and that can't happen if critical information is hidden.”

In a response to the OEB report on Monday, the IESO said its own initial analysis found that the error likely pushed wholesale electricity payments up by $225 million. That calculation assumed that the higher prices would have changed consumer behaviour, while upcoming electricity auctions were cited as a way to lower costs, it said.

In response to questions, a spokesperson said residential and small commercial consumers would have saved $11 million in electricity costs over the 11-month period, even as a typical bill increase loomed province-wide, while larger consumers would have paid an extra $14 million.

That is because residential and small commercial customers pay some costs via time-of-use rates, including a temporary recovery rate framework, the IESO said, while larger customers pay them in a way that reflects their share of overall electricity use during the five highest demand hours of the year.

The IESO said it could not compensate those that had paid too much, given the complexity of the system, and that the modelling error did not have a significant impact on ratepayers.

While acknowledging the effects of the mistake would vary among its customers, the IESO said the net market impact was less than $10 million, amid ongoing legislation to lower electricity rates in Ontario.

It said it would improve testing of its processes prior to deployment and agreed to publicly disclose errors that significantly affect the wholesale market in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

NTPC Bangladesh Power Supply Tender sees NVVN win 300 MW, long-term cross-border electricity trade to BPDB, enabled by 500 MW HVDC interconnection; rivals included Adani, PTC, and Sembcorp in the competitive bidding process.

Key Points

It is NTPC's NVVN win to supply 300 MW to Bangladesh's BPDB for 15 years via a 500 MW HVDC link.

✅ NVVN selected as L1 for short and long-term supply

✅ 300 MW to BPDB; delivery via India-Bangladesh HVDC link

✅ Competing bidders: Adani, PTC, Sembcorp

NTPC, India’s biggest electricity producer in a nation that is now the third-largest electricity producer globally, on Tuesday said it has won a tender to supply 300 megawatts (MW) of electricity to Bangladesh for 15 years.

Bangladesh Power Development Board (BPDP), in a market where Bangladesh's nuclear power is expanding with IAEA assistance, had invited tenders for supply of 500 MW power from India for short term (1 June, 2018 to 31 December, 2019) and long term (1 January, 2020 to 31 May, 2033). NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam (NVVN), Adani Group, PTC and Singapore-bases Sembcorp submitted bids by the scheduled date of 11 January.

Financial bid was opened on 11 February, the company said in a statement, amid rising electricity prices domestically. “NVVN, wholly-owned subsidiary of NTPC Limited, emerged as successful bidder (L1), both in short term and long term for 300 MW power,” it said.

Without giving details of the rate at which power will be supplied, NTPC said supply of electricity is likely to commence from June 2018 after commissioning of 500 MW HVDC inter-connection project between India and Bangladesh, and as the government advances nuclear power initiatives to bolster capacity in the sector. India currently exports approximately 600 MW electricity to Bangladesh even as authorities weigh coal rationing measures to meet surging demand domestically.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

US Summer Energy Bills Crisis is driven by record heatwaves, soaring electricity prices, AC cooling demand, energy poverty risks, and LIHEAP relief, straining low-income households, vulnerable seniors, and budgets amid volatile utilities and peak demand.

Key Points

Rising household energy costs from extreme heat, higher electricity prices, and AC demand, straining vulnerable families.

✅ Record heatwaves drive peak electricity and cooling loads

✅ Tiered rates and volatile markets inflate utility bills

✅ LIHEAP aid and cooling centers offer short-term relief

As the sweltering heat of summer continues to grip much of the United States, American households are grappling with a staggering rise in energy bills. The combination of record-breaking temperatures and rising electricity prices is placing an unprecedented financial strain on families, raising concerns about the long-term impact on household budgets and overall well-being.

Record Heat and Energy Consumption

This summer has witnessed some of the hottest temperatures on record across the country. With many regions experiencing prolonged heatwaves, the demand for air conditioning and cooling systems has surged amid unprecedented electricity demand across parts of the U.S. The increased use of these energy-intensive appliances has led to a sharp rise in electricity consumption, which, combined with elevated energy prices, has pushed household energy bills to new heights.

The situation is particularly dire for households that are already struggling financially. Many families are facing energy bills that are not only higher than usual but are reaching levels that are unsustainable, underscoring electricity struggles for thousands of families across the country. This has prompted concerns about the potential for energy poverty, where individuals are forced to make difficult choices between paying for essential services and covering other necessary expenses.

Impact on Low-Income and Vulnerable Households

Low-income households and vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected by these soaring energy costs. For many, the financial burden of high energy bills is compounded by energy insecurity during the pandemic and other economic pressures, such as rising food prices and stagnant wages. The strain of paying for electricity during extreme heat can lead to tough decisions, including cutting back on other essential needs like healthcare or education.

Moreover, the heat itself poses a serious health risk, particularly for the elderly, children, and individuals with pre-existing health conditions. High temperatures can exacerbate conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses, making the need for reliable cooling even more critical. For those struggling to afford adequate cooling, the risk of heat-related illnesses and fatalities increases significantly.

Utilities and Energy Pricing

The sharp rise in energy bills can be attributed to several factors, including higher costs of electricity production and distribution. The ongoing transition to cleaner energy sources, while necessary for long-term environmental sustainability, has introduced short-term volatility in energy markets. Additionally, power-company supply chain crises and increased demand during peak summer months have contributed to higher prices.

Utilities are often criticized for their pricing structures, which can be complex and opaque. Some regions, including areas where California electricity bills soar under scrutiny, use tiered pricing models that charge higher rates as energy consumption increases. This can disproportionately impact households that need to use more energy during extreme heat, further exacerbating financial strain.

Government and Community Response

In response to the crisis, various government and community initiatives are being rolled out to provide relief. Federal and state programs aimed at assisting low-income households with energy costs are being expanded. These programs, such as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), offer financial assistance to help with utility bills, but demand often outstrips available resources.

Local community organizations are also stepping in to offer support. Initiatives include distributing fans and portable air conditioners, providing temporary cooling centers, and offering financial assistance to help cover energy costs. These efforts are crucial in helping to mitigate the immediate impact of high energy bills on vulnerable households.

Long-Term Solutions and Sustainability

The current crisis highlights the need for long-term solutions to address both the causes and consequences of high energy costs. Investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies can help reduce the overall demand for electricity and lower long-term costs. Improvements in building insulation, the adoption of energy-efficient appliances, and advancements in smart grid technologies to prevent summer power outages are all essential components of a sustainable energy future.

Furthermore, addressing income inequality and supporting economic stability are critical to ensuring that all households can manage their energy needs without facing financial hardship. Policymakers will need to consider a range of strategies, including financial support programs, regulatory reforms, and infrastructure investments, to create a more equitable and resilient energy system.

Conclusion

As American households endure the double burden of extreme summer heat and skyrocketing energy bills, the need for immediate relief and long-term solutions has never been clearer. The current crisis serves as a reminder of the broader challenges facing the nation’s energy system and the importance of addressing both short-term needs and long-term sustainability. By investing in efficient technologies, supporting vulnerable populations, and developing resilient infrastructure, the U.S. can work towards a future where energy costs are manageable, and everyone has access to the resources they need to stay safe and comfortable.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News