GE taps into natural gas deal

UK Coal Phase-Out signals an energy transition, accelerating decarbonization with offshore wind, solar, and storage, advancing net-zero targets, cleaner air, and a just transition for communities impacted by fossil fuel decline.

Key Points

A policy to end coal power in the UK, boosting renewables and net-zero goals while improving air quality.

✅ Coal electricity fell from 40% in 2012 to under 3% by 2022

✅ Offshore wind and solar expand capacity; storage enhances reliability

✅ Just transition funds retrain workers and support coal regions

The United Kingdom is poised to mark a significant milestone in its energy history by phasing out coal power entirely, ending a reliance that has lasted for 142 years. This decision underscores the UK’s commitment to combating climate change and transitioning toward cleaner energy sources, reflecting a broader global energy transition away from fossil fuels. As the country embarks on this journey, it highlights both the achievements and challenges of moving towards a sustainable energy future.

A Historic Transition

The UK’s relationship with coal dates back to the Industrial Revolution, when coal was the backbone of its energy supply, driving factories, trains, and homes. However, as concerns over air quality and climate change have mounted, the nation has progressively shifted its focus toward renewable energy sources amid a global decline in coal-fired electricity worldwide. The decision to end coal power represents the culmination of this transformation, signaling a definitive break from a past heavily reliant on fossil fuels.

In recent years, the UK has made remarkable strides in reducing its carbon emissions. From 2012 to 2022, coal's contribution to the country's electricity generation plummeted from around 40% to less than 3%, as policies like the British carbon tax took effect across the power sector. This dramatic decline is largely due to the rise of renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric power, which have increasingly filled the gap left by coal.

Environmental and Health Benefits

The move away from coal power has significant environmental benefits. Coal is one of the most carbon-intensive energy sources, releasing substantial amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other harmful pollutants into the atmosphere. By phasing out coal, the UK aims to significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality, which has been linked to serious health issues such as respiratory diseases and cardiovascular problems.

The UK government has set ambitious net zero policies, aiming to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Ending coal power is a critical step in reaching this target, demonstrating leadership on the global stage and setting an example for other countries still dependent on fossil fuels. This transition not only addresses climate change but also promotes a healthier environment for future generations.

The Role of Renewable Energy

As the UK phases out coal, renewable energy sources are expected to play a central role in meeting the country's energy needs. Wind power, in particular, has surged in prominence, with the UK leading the world in offshore wind capacity. In 2020, wind energy surpassed coal for the first time, accounting for over 24% of the country's electricity generation.

Solar energy has also seen significant growth, contributing to the diversification of the UK’s energy mix. The government’s investments in renewable energy infrastructure and technology have facilitated this rapid transition, providing the necessary framework for a sustainable energy future.

Economic Implications

While the transition away from coal power presents environmental benefits, it also carries economic implications. The coal industry has historically provided jobs and economic activity, particularly in regions where coal mining was a mainstay, a dynamic echoed in analyses of the decarbonization of Canada's electricity grid and its regional impacts. As the UK moves toward a greener economy, there is an urgent need to support communities that may be adversely affected by this transition.

To address potential job losses, the government has emphasized the importance of investing in retraining programs and creating new opportunities in the renewable energy sector. This will be vital in ensuring a just transition that supports workers and communities as the energy landscape evolves.

Challenges Ahead

Despite the progress made, the journey toward a coal-free UK is not without challenges. One significant concern is the need for reliable energy storage solutions to complement intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar. Ensuring a stable energy supply during periods of low generation will be critical for maintaining grid reliability.

Moreover, public acceptance and engagement will be crucial, as illustrated by debates over New Zealand's electricity transition and its pace, as the UK navigates this transition. Engaging communities in discussions about energy policies and developments can foster understanding and support for the changes ahead.

Looking to the Future

The UK’s decision to phase out coal power after 142 years marks a significant turning point in its energy policy and environmental strategy. This historic shift not only aligns with the country’s climate goals but also showcases its commitment to a cleaner, more sustainable future.

As the UK continues to invest in renewable energy and transition away from fossil fuels, it sets an important example for other nations, including those on China's path to carbon neutrality, grappling with similar challenges. By embracing this transition, the UK is not only addressing pressing environmental concerns but also paving the way for a greener economy that can thrive in the decades to come.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Texas Gulf Coast Power Outages from Harvey continue as flooding, high winds, and downed lines paralyze Houston and coastal utilities, while restoration crews from out-of-state work to repair infrastructure and restore electricity across impacted communities.

Key Points

Power disruptions across Houston and the Gulf Coast from Harvey, driven by flooding, wind damage, and blocked access.

✅ CenterPoint warns multi-day outages in flooded zones.

✅ AEP Texas aided by crews from Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri.

✅ Entergy expects more outages as storm nears Galveston.

Hundreds of thousands of Texans were without power along the Gulf Coast as Tropical Storm Harvey left parts of the Houston area under water, with extended Houston outages compounding response efforts.

There were roughly 280,000 customers without power along the Texas's coast and in Houston and the surrounding areas on Monday, according to reported outages by the state's investor-owned utilities. Harvey, which made landfall on Friday, caused devastating flooding and knocked out power lines along its destructive path, similar to the Louisiana grid rebuild after Laura that required weeks of restoration.

CenterPoint Energy reported more than 100,000 outages earlier on Monday, though that figure was down to 91,744 shortly after 1 p.m. on Monday.

The company said it was unable to access hard-hit areas until floodwaters recede and electric infrastructure dries out, a challenge that, as seen in Florida power restoration efforts elsewhere, has taken weeks to resolve. Outages in the most flooded areas could last for several days, CenterPoint warned.

AEP Texas's coverage area south of Houston had 150,500 customers without electricity as of 11 a.m. ET on Monday. That was down from the peak of its outages on Saturday afternoon, which affected 220,000 customers.

Former FEMA deputy director: Texas has already begun recovery from storm  1:54 PM ET Mon, 28 Aug 2017 | 05:57

Corpus Christi and the surrounding areas along the Gulf Coast were still experiencing the most outages, while persistent Toronto outages after a spring storm underscored how long recovery can take in urban areas. AEP credited assistance from out-of-state workers for helping to get the lights back on.

"Thousands of resources have arrived from across the country to help AEP Texas with restoration efforts following this historic weather event. Crews from Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri and other states have arrived and are working on restoring power to those impacted by Hurricane Harvey," AEP said in a statement.

Entergy reported 29,500 customers were without power on Monday in areas north of Houston. The company warned that additional outages were expected if Harvey moves inland near the island city of Galveston on Wednesday as anticipated, a pattern similar to New Orleans during Ida where electricity failed despite levees holding.

Houston, Beaumont and Victoria are expected to see continued periods of torrential rain through Tuesday, before Harvey begins to move north on Wednesday and out of the flood zone by Thursday.

"Our crews are safely restoring power as quickly as possible, but the continued wind, rain and flooding are having an impact on restoration efforts," Entergy said in a statement.

South of Houston, about 7,500 Texas New Mexico Power Company customers were still experiencing outages, according to the company's outage map.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations 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

FirstEnergy Nuclear Plant Closures threaten Ohio and Pennsylvania jobs, tax revenue, and grid stability, as Nuclear Matters and Brattle Group warn of higher carbon emissions and market pressures from PJM and cheap natural gas.

Key Points

Planned shutdowns of Davis-Besse, Perry, and Beaver Valley, with regional economic and carbon impacts.

✅ Over 3,000 direct jobs and local tax revenue at risk

✅ Emissions may rise until renewables scale, possibly into 2034

✅ Debate over subsidies, market design, and PJM capacity rules

A national nuclear lobby wants to remind people what's at stake for Ohio and Pennsylvania if FirstEnergy Solutions follows through with plans to shut down three nuclear plants over the next three years, including its Davis-Besse nuclear plant east of Toledo.

A report issued Monday by Nuclear Matters largely echoes concerns raised by FES, a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp., and other supporters of nuclear power about economic and environmental hardships and brownout risks that will likely result from the planned closures.

Along with Davis-Besse, Perry nuclear plant east of Cleveland and the twin-reactor Beaver Valley nuclear complex west of Pittsburgh are slated to close.

#google#

"If these plants close, the livelihoods of thousands of Ohio and Pennsylvania residents will disappear. The over 3,000 highly skilled individuals directly employed by these sites will leave to seek employment at other facilities still operating around the country," Lonnie Stephenson, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers president, said in a statement distributed by Nuclear Matters. Mr. Stephenson also serves on the Nuclear Matters advocacy council.

This new report and others like it are part of an extensive campaign by nuclear energy advocates to court state and federal legislators one more time for tens of millions of dollars of financial support or at least legislation that better suits the nuclear industry. Critics allege such pleas amount to a request for massive government bailouts, arguing that deregulated electricity markets should not subsidize nuclear.

The latest report was prepared for Nuclear Matters by the Brattle Group, a firm that specializes in analyzing economic, finance, and regulatory issues for corporations, law firms, and governments.

"These announced retirements create a real urgency to learn what would happen if these plants are lost," Dean Murphy, the Brattle report's lead author, said.

More than 3,000 jobs would be lost, as would millions of dollars in tax revenue. It also could take as long as 2034 for the region's climate-altering carbon emissions to be brought back down to existing levels, based on current growth projections for solar- and wind-powered projects, and initiatives such as ending coal by 2032 by some utilities, Mr. Murphy said.

His group's report only takes into account nuclear plant operations, though. Many of those who oppose nuclear power have long pointed out that mining uranium for nuclear plant fuel generates substantial emissions, as does the process of producing steel cladding for fuel bundles and the enrichment-production of that fuel. Still, nuclear has ranked among the better performers in reports that have taken such a broader look at overall emissions.

FES has accused the regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, of creating market conditions that favor natural gas and, thus, make it almost impossible for nuclear to compete throughout its 13-state region, a debate intensified by proposed electricity pricing changes at the federal level.

PJM has strongly denied those accusations, and has said it anticipates no shortfalls in energy distribution if those nuclear plants close prematurely, even as a recent FERC decision on grid policy drew industry criticism.

FES, citing massive losses, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The target dates for closures of the FES properties are May 31, 2020 for Davis-Besse; May 31, 2021 for Perry and Beaver Valley Unit 1, and Oct. 31, 2021 for Beaver Valley Unit 2.

In addition to the three FES sites, the report includes information about the Three Mile Island Unit 1 plant near Harrisburg, Pa., which Chicago-based Exelon Generation Corp. has previously announced will be shut down in 2019. That plant and others are experiencing similar difficulties the FES plants face by competing in a market radically changed by record-low natural gas prices.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hourly Electricity Emissions Tracking maps grid balancing areas, embodied emissions, and imports/exports, revealing carbon intensity shifts across PJM, ERCOT, and California ISO, and clarifying renewable energy versus coal impacts on health and climate.

Key Points

An hourly method tracing generation, flows, and embodied emissions to quantify carbon intensity across US balancing areas.

✅ Hourly traces of imports/exports and generation mix

✅ Consumption-based carbon intensity by balancing area

✅ Policy insights for renewables, coal, health costs

In the United States, electricity generation accounts for nearly 30% of our carbon emissions. Some states have responded to that by setting aggressive renewable energy standards; others are hoping to see coal propped up even as its economics get worse. Complicating matters further is the fact that many regional grids are integrated, and as America goes electric the stakes grow, meaning power generated in one location may be exported and used in a different state entirely.

Tracking these electricity exports is critical for understanding how to lower our national carbon emissions. In addition, power from a dirty source like coal has health and environment impacts where it's produced, and the costs of these aren't always paid by the parties using the electricity. Unfortunately, getting reliable figures on how electricity is produced and where it's used is challenging, even for consumers trying to find where their electricity comes from in the first place, leaving some of the best estimates with a time resolution of only a month.

Now, three Stanford researchers—Jacques A. de Chalendar, John Taggart, and Sally M. Benson—have greatly improved on that standard, and they have managed to track power generation and use on an hourly basis. The researchers found that, of the 66 grid balancing areas within the United States, only three have carbon emissions equivalent to our national average, and they have found that imports and exports of electricity have both seasonal and daily changes. de Chalendar et al. discovered that the net results can be substantial, with imported electricity increasing California's emissions/power by 20%.

Hour by hour
To figure out the US energy trading landscape, the researchers obtained 2016 data for grid features called balancing areas. The continental US has 66 of these, providing much better spatial resolution on the data than the larger grid subdivisions. This doesn't cover everything—several balancing areas in Canada and Mexico are tied in to the US grid—and some of these balancing areas are much larger than others. The PJM grid, serving Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland, for example, is more than twice as large as Texas' ERCOT, in a state that produces and consumes the most electricity in the US.

Despite these limitations, it's possible to get hourly figures on how much electricity was generated, what was used to produce it, and whether it was used locally or exported to another balancing area. Information on the generating sources allowed the researchers to attach an emissions figure to each unit of electricity produced. Coal, for example, produces double the emissions of natural gas, which in turn produces more than an order of magnitude more carbon dioxide than the manufacturing of solar, wind, or hydro facilities. These figures were turned into what the authors call "embodied emissions" that can be traced to where they're eventually used.

Similar figures were also generated for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Released by the burning of fossil fuels, these can both influence the global climate and produce local health problems.

Huge variation
The results were striking. "The consumption-based carbon intensity of electricity varies by almost an order of magnitude across the different regions in the US electricity system," the authors conclude. The low is the Bonneville Power grid region, which is largely supplied by hydropower; it has typical emissions below 100kg of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour. The highest emissions come in the Ohio Valley Electric region, where emissions clear 900kg/MW-hr. Only three regional grids match the overall grid emissions intensity, although that includes the very large PJM (where capacity auction payouts recently fell), ERCOT, and Southern Co balancing areas.

Most of the low-emissions power that's exported comes from the Pacific Northwest's abundant hydropower, while the Rocky Mountains area exports electricity with the highest associated emissions. That leads to some striking asymmetries. Local generation in the hydro-rich Idaho Power Company has embodied emissions of only 71kg/MW-hr, while its imports, coming primarily from Rocky Mountain states, have a carbon content of 625kg/MW-hr.

The reliance on hydropower also makes the asymmetry seasonal. Local generation is highest in the spring as snow melts, but imports become a larger source outside this time of year. As solar and wind can also have pronounced seasonal shifts, similar changes will likely be seen as these become larger contributors to many of these regional grids. Similar things occur daily, as both demand and solar production (and, to a lesser extent, wind) have distinct daily profiles.

The Golden State
California's CISO provides another instructive case. Imports represent less than 30% of its total electric use in 2016, yet California electricity imports provided 40% of its embodied emissions. Some of these, however, come internally from California, provided by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The state itself, however, has only had limited tracking of imported emissions, lumping many of its sources as "other," and has been exporting its energy policies to Western states in ways that shape regional markets.

Overall, the 2016 inventory provides a narrow picture of the US grid, as plenty of trends are rapidly changing our country's emissions profile, including the rise of renewables and the widespread adoption of efficiency measures and other utility trends in 2017 that continue to evolve. The method developed here can, however, allow for annual updates, providing us with a much better picture of trends. That could be quite valuable to track things like how the rapid rise in solar power is altering the daily production of clean power.

More significantly, it provides a basis for more informed policymaking. States that wish to promote low-emissions power can use the information here to either alter the source of their imports or to encourage the sites where they're produced to adopt more renewable power. And those states that are exporting electricity produced primarily through fossil fuels could ensure that the locations where the power is used pay a price that includes the health costs of its production.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Pickering Nuclear Plant Extension faces CNSC approval as Ontario Power Generation pursues license renewal before the June 30, 2023 deadline, amid a 2025 capacity crunch and grid reliability risks from decommissioning and overlapping nuclear outages.

Key Points

A plan to run Pickering past 2024 to Sept 2026, pending CNSC license renewal to address Ontario's 2025 capacity gap.

✅ CNSC approval needed for operation beyond Dec 31, 2024

✅ OPG aims to file by June 30, 2023 deadline

✅ Extension targets grid reliability through 2026

Ontario’s electricity generator has yet to file an official application to extend the life of the Pickering nuclear power plant, more than eight months after the Ford government announced a plan to continue operating Pickering for longer.

As the province faces an electricity shortfall in 2025 and beyond, the Ford government scrambled to prolong the Pickering power plant until September 2026, in order to guarantee a steady supply of power as the province experiences a rise in demand and shutdowns at other nuclear power plants.

The life extension may come down to the wire, however, as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), the federal regulator tasked with approving or denying the extension, tells Global News the province has yet to file key paperwork.

The information is required for the application, including materials related to the proposed Pickering B refurbishment, and the government now has a month before the deadline runs out.

“The Commission requires that Ontario Power Generation submit specific information by June 30, 2023, if it intends to operate the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station beyond December 31, 2024,” the CNSC told Global News in a statement. “The Commission Registry has not yet received an application from Ontario Power Generation.”

If Ontario doesn’t receive the green light, the power plant which currently is responsible for 14 per cent of the province’s energy grid will be decommissioned in 2025, leaving the province with a significant electricity supply gap if replacement sources are not secured.

For its part, the Ford government doesn’t seem concerned about the impending timeline, even though the station was slated to close as planned, suggesting the Crown corporation responsible for the application will get it in on time.

“OPG is on track to submit their application before the end of June and has already started to submit supporting materials as part of the regulatory process toward clean power goals,” a spokesperson for energy minister Todd Smith said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News