Valleyview power plant opens a month ahead of schedule

Income Graduated Fixed Charge aligns CPUC billing with utility fixed costs, lowers usage rates, supports electrification, and shifts California investor-owned utilities' electric bills by income, with CARE and Climate Credit offsets for low-income households.

Key Points

A CPUC proposal: an income-based monthly fixed fee with lower usage rates to align costs and aid low-income customers.

✅ Income-tiered fixed fees: $0-$42; CARE: $14-$22, by utility territory

✅ Usage rates drop 16%-22% to support electrification and cost-reflective billing

✅ Lowest-income save ~$10-$20; some higher earners pay ~$10+ more monthly

The Public Advocates Office (PAO) for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has proposed adding a monthly income-based fixed charge on electric utility bills based on income level.  

The rate change is designed to lower bills for the lowest-income residents while aligning billing more directly with utility costs. 

PAO’s recommendation for the Income Graduated Fixed Charge places fees between $22 and $42 per month in the three major investor-owned utilities’ territories, including an SDG&E minimum charge debate under way, for customers not enrolled in the California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) program. As seen below, CARE customers would be charged between $14 per month and $22 a month, depending on income level and territory.

For households earning $50,000 or less per year, the fixed charge would be $0, but only if the California Climate Credit is applied to offset the fixed cost.

Meanwhile, usage-based electricity rates are lowered in the PAO proposal, part of major changes to electric bills statewide. Average rates would be reduced between 16% to 22% for the three major investor-owned utilities.

The lowest-income bracket of Californians is expected to save roughly $10 to $20 a month under the proposal, while middle-income customers may see costs rise by about $20 a month, even as lawmakers seek to overturn income-based charges in Sacramento.

“We anticipate the vast majority of low-income customers ($50,000 or less per year) will have their monthly bills decrease by $10 or more, and a small proportion of the highest income earners ($100,000+ per year) will see their monthly bills rise by $10 or more,” said the PAO.

The charges are an effort to help suppress ever-increasing electricity generation and transmission rates, which are among the highest in the country, with soaring electricity prices reported across California. Rates are expected to rise sharply as wildfire mitigation efforts are implemented by the utilities found at fault for their origin.

“We are very concerned. However, we do not see the increases stopping at this point,” Linda Serizawa, deputy director for energy, PAO, told pv magazine. “We think the pace and scale of the [rate] increases is growing faster than we would have anticipated for several years now.”

Consumer advocates and regulators face calls for action on surging electricity bills across the state.

The proposed changes are also meant to more directly couple billing with the fixed charges that utilities incur, as California considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid. For example, activities like power line maintenance, energy efficiency programs, and wildfire prevention are not expected to vary with usage, so these activities would be funded through a fixed charge.

Michael Campbell of the PAO’s customer programs team, and leader of the proposed program, likened paying for grid enhancements and other social programs with utility rate increases to “paying for food stamps by taxing food.” Instead, a fixed charge would cover these costs.

PAO said the move to lower rates for usage should help encourage electrification as California moves to replace heating and cooling, appliances, and gas combustion cars with electrified counterparts. In addition, lower rates mean the cost burden of running these devices is improved.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

SM-1A Nuclear Plant Decommissioning details the US Army Corps of Engineers' removal of the Fort Greely reactor, Cold War facility dismantling, environmental monitoring, remote-site power history, and timeline to 2026 under a deactivated nuclear program.

Key Points

Army Corps plan to dismantle Fort Greely's SM-1A reactor and complete decommissioning of remaining systems by 2026.

✅ Built for remote Arctic radar support during the Cold War

✅ High costs beat diesel; program later deemed impractical

✅ Reactor parts removed; residuals monitored; removal by 2026

The US Army Corps of Engineers has begun decommissioning Alaska’s only nuclear power plant, SM-1A, which is located at Fort Greely, even as new US reactors continue to take shape nationwide. The $17m plant closed in 1972 after ten years of sporadic operation. It was out of commission from 1967 to 1969 for extensive repairs. Much of has already been dismantled and sent for disposal, and the rest, which is encased in concrete, is now to be removed.

The plant was built as part of an experimental programme to determine whether nuclear facilities, akin to next-generation nuclear concepts, could be built and operated at remote sites more cheaply than diesel-fuelled plants.

"The main approach was to reduce significant fuel-transportation costs by having a nuclear reactor that could operate for long terms, a concept echoed in the NuScale SMR safety evaluation process, with just one nuclear core," Brian Hearty said. Hearty manages the Army Corps of Engineers’ Deactivated Nuclear Power Plant Program.

#google#

He said the Army built SM-1A in 1962 hoping to provide power reliably at remote Arctic radar sites, where in similarly isolated regions today new US coal plants may still be considered, intended to detect incoming missiles from the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. He added that the programme worked but not as well as Pentagon officials had hoped. While SM-1A could be built and operated in a cold and remote location, its upfront costs were much higher than anticipated, and it costs more to maintain than a diesel power plant. Moreover, the programme became irrelevant because of advances in Soviet rocket science and the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Hearty said the reactor was partially dismantled soon after it was shut down. “All of the fuel in the reactor core was removed and shipped back to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) for them to either reprocess or dispose of,” he noted. “The highly activated control and absorber rods were also removed and shipped back to the AEC.”

The SM-1A plant produced 1.8MWe and 20MWt, including steam, which was used to heat the post. Because that part of the system was still needed, Army officials removed most of the nuclear-power system and linked the heat and steam components to a diesel-fired boiler. However, several parts of the nuclear system remained, including the reactor pressure vessel and reactor coolant pumps. “Those were either kept in place, or they were cut off and laid down in the tall vapour-containment building there,” Hearty said. “And then they were grouted and concreted in place.” The Corps of Engineers wants to remove all that remains of the plant, but it is as yet unclear whether that will be feasible.

Meanwhile, monitoring for radioactivity around the facility shows that it remains at acceptable levels. “It would be safe to say there’s no threat to human health in the environment,” said Brenda Barber, project manager for the decommissioning. Work is still in its early stages and is due to be completed in 2026 at the earliest. Barber said the Corps awarded the $4.6m contract in December to a Virginia-based firm to develop a long-range plan for the project, similar in scope to large reactor refurbishment efforts elsewhere. Among other things, this will help officials determine how much of the SM-1A will remain after it’s decommissioned. “There will still be buildings there,” she said. “There will still be components of some of the old structure there that may likely remain.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis highlights nuclear power vs coal and natural gas, renewables and hydropower limits, carbon emissions, energy security, and baseload reliability during Russia-related supply shocks and winter demand.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis weighs reactor extensions vs coal revival to bolster security, curb emissions.

✅ Coal plants restarted; nuclear shutdown stays on schedule.

✅ Energy security prioritized amid Russian gas supply cuts.

✅ Emissions likely rise despite renewables expansion.

Peel away the politics and the passion, the doomsaying and the denialism, and climate change largely boils down to this: energy. To avoid the chances of catastrophic climate change while ensuring the world can continue to grow — especially for poor people who live in chronically energy-starved areas — we’ll need to produce ever more energy from sources that emit little or no greenhouse gases.

It’s that simple — and, of course, that complicated.

Zero-carbon sources of renewable energy like wind and solar have seen tremendous increases in capacity and equally impressive decreases in price in recent years, while the decades-old technology of hydropower is still what the International Energy Agency calls the “forgotten giant of low-carbon electricity.”

And then there’s nuclear power. Viewed strictly through the lens of climate change, nuclear power can claim to be a green dream, even as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy most.

Unlike coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions when they generate electricity, and over the past 50 years they’ve reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 60 gigatonnes. Unlike solar or wind, nuclear plants aren’t intermittent, and they require significantly less land area per megawatt produced. Unlike hydropower — which has reached its natural limits in many developed countries, including the US — nuclear plants don’t require environmentally intensive dams.

As accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown, when nuclear power goes wrong, it can go really wrong. But newer plant designs reduce the risk of such catastrophes, which themselves tend to garner far more attention than the steady stream of deaths from climate change and air pollution linked to the normal operation of conventional power plants.

So you might imagine that those who see climate change as an unparalleled existential threat would cheer the development of new nuclear plants and support the extension of nuclear power already in service.

In practice, however, that’s often not the case, as recent events in Germany underline.

When is a Green not green?
The Russian war in Ukraine has made a mess of global energy markets, but perhaps no country has proven more vulnerable than Germany, reigniting debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany among policymakers.

At the start of the year, Russian exports supplied more than half of Germany’s natural gas, along with significant portions of its oil and coal imports. Since the war began, Russia has severely curtailed the flow of gas to Germany, putting the country in a state of acute energy crisis, with fears growing as next winter looms.

With little natural gas supplies of the country’s own, and its heavily supported renewable sector unable to fully make up the shortfall, German leaders faced a dilemma. To maintain enough gas reserves to get the country through the winter, they could try to put off the closure of Germany’s last three remaining nuclear reactors temporarily, which were scheduled to shutter by the end of 2022 as part of Germany’s post-Fukushima turn against nuclear power, and even restart already closed reactors.

Or they could try to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants, and make up some of the electricity deficit with Germany’s still-ample coal reserves.

Based on carbon emissions alone, you’d presumably go for the nuclear option. Coal is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, responsible for a fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions — more than any other single source — as well as a soup of conventional air pollutants. Nuclear power produces none of these.

German legislators saw it differently. Last week, the country’s parliament, with the backing of members of the Green Party in the coalition government, passed emergency legislation to reopen coal-powered plants, as well as further measures to boost the production of renewable energy. There would be no effort to restart closed nuclear power plants, or even consider a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout for the last active reactors.

“The gas storage tanks must be full by winter,” Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister and a member of the Green Party, said in June, echoing arguments that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue for the coming winter.

Partially as a result of that prioritization, Germany — which has already seen carbon emissions rise over the past two years, missing its ambitious emissions targets — will emit even more carbon in 2022.

To be fair, restarting closed nuclear power plants is a far more complex undertaking than lighting up old coal plants. Plant operators had only bought enough uranium to make it to the end of 2022, so nuclear fuel supplies are set to run out regardless.

But that’s also the point. Germany, which views itself as a global leader on climate, is grasping at the most carbon-intensive fuel source in part because it made the decision in 2011 to fully turn its back on nuclear for good at the time, enshrining what had been a planned phase-out into law.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Scotland Wind Energy delivered record renewable power as wind turbines and farms generated 9,831,320 MWh in H1 2019, supplying clean electricity for every home twice and supporting northern England, according to WWF data.

Key Points

Term for Scotland's wind power output, highlighting 2019 records, clean electricity, and progress on decarbonization.

✅ 9,831,320 MWh generated Jan-Jun 2019 by wind farms

✅ Enough to power 4.47 million homes twice in that period

✅ Advances decarbonization and 2030 renewables, 2050 net-zero goals

Wind turbines in Scotland produced enough electricity in the first half of 2019, reflecting periods when wind led the power mix across the UK, to power every home in the country twice over, according to new data by the analytics group WeatherEnergy. The wind farms generated 9,831,320 megawatt-hours between January and June, as the UK set a wind generation record in comparable periods, equal to the total electricity consumption of 4.47 million homes during that same period.

The electricity generated by wind in early 2019 is enough to power all of Scotland’s homes, as well as a large portion of northern England’s, highlighting how wind and solar exceeded nuclear in the UK in recent milestones as well, and events such as record UK output during Storm Malik underscore this capacity.

“These are amazing figures,” Robin Parker, climate and energy policy manager at WWF, which highlighted the new data, said in a statement. “Scotland’s wind energy revolution is clearly continuing to power ahead, as wind became the UK’s main electricity source in a recent first. Up and down the country, we are all benefitting from cleaner energy and so is the climate.”

Scotland currently has a target of generating half its electricity from renewables by 2030, a goal buoyed by milestones like more UK electricity from wind than coal in 2016, and decarbonizing its energy system almost entirely by 2050. Experts say the latest wind energy data shows the country could reach its goal far sooner than originally anticipated, especially with complementary technologies such as tidal power in Scottish waters gaining traction.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Canadian EV Manufacturing is accelerating with GM, Ford, and Project Arrow, integrating cross-border supply chains, battery production, rare-earths like lithium and cobalt, autonomous tech, and home charging to drive clean mobility and decarbonization.

Key Points

Canadian EV manufacturing spans electric and autonomous vehicles, domestic batteries, and integrated US-Canada trade.

✅ GM and Ford retool plants for EVs and autonomous production

✅ Project Arrow showcases Canadian zero-emission supply capabilities

✅ Lithium, cobalt, and battery hubs target cross-border resilience

The storied North American automotive industry, the ultimate showcase of Canada’s high-tensile trade ties with the United States and emerging Canada-U.S. collaboration on EVs momentum, is about to navigate a dramatic hairpin turn.

But as the Big Three veer into the all-electric, autonomous era, some Canadians want to seize the moment and take the wheel.

“There’s a long shadow between the promise and the execution, but all the pieces are there,” says Flavio Volpe, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association.

“We went from a marriage on the rocks to one that both partners are committed to. It could be the best second chapter ever.”

Volpe is referring specifically to GM, which announced late last month an ambitious plan to convert its entire portfolio of vehicles to an all-electric platform by 2035.

But that decision is just part of a cascading transformation across the industry, marking an EV inflection point with existential ramifications for one of the most tightly integrated cross-border manufacturing and supply-chain relationships in the world.

China is already working hard to become the “source of a new way” to power vehicles, President Joe Biden warned last week.

“We just have to step up.”

Canada has both the resources and expertise to do the same, says Volpe, whose ambitious Project Arrow concept — a homegrown zero-emissions vehicle named for the 1950s-era Avro interceptor jet — is designed to showcase exactly that, as recent EV assembly deals in Canada underscore.

“We’re going to prove to the market, we’re going to prove to the (manufacturers) around the planet, that everything that goes into your zero-emission vehicle can be made or sourced here in Canada,” he says.

“If somebody wants to bring what we did over the line and make 100,000 of them a year, I’ll hand it to them.”

GM earned the ire of Canadian auto workers in 2018 by announcing the closure of its assembly plant in Oshawa, Ont. It later resurrected the facility with a $170-million investment to retool it for autonomous vehicles.

“It was, ‘You closed Oshawa, how dare you?’ And I was one of the ‘How dare you’ people,” Volpe says.

“Well, now that they’ve reopened Oshawa, you sit there and you open your eyes to the commitment that General Motors made.”

Ford, too, has entered the fray, promising $1.8 billion to retool its sprawling landmark facility in Oakville, Ont., to build EVs.

It’s a leap of faith of sorts, considering what market experts say is ongoing consumer doubt about EVs and EV supply shortages that drive wait times.

“Range anxiety” — the persistent fear of a depleted battery at the side of the road — remains a major concern, even though it’s less of a problem than most people think.

Consulting firm Deloitte Canada, which has been tracking automotive consumer trends for more than a decade, found three-quarters of future EV buyers it surveyed planned to charge their vehicles at home overnight.

“The difference between what is a perceived issue in a consumer’s mind and what is an actual issue is actually quite negligible,” Ryan Robinson, Deloitte’s automotive research leader, says in an interview.

“It’s still an issue, full stop, and that’s something that the industry is going to have to contend with.”

So, too, is price, especially with the end of the COVID-19 pandemic still a long way off. Deloitte’s latest survey, released last month, found 45 per cent of future buyers in Canada hope to spend less than $35,000 — a tall order when most base electric-vehicle models hover between $40,000 and $45,000.

“You put all of that together and there’s still, despite the electric-car revolution hype, some major challenges that a lot of stakeholders that touch the automotive industry face,” Robinson says.

“It’s not just government, it’s not just automakers, but there are a variety of stakeholders that have a role to play in making sure that Canadians are ready to make the transition over to electric mobility.”

With protectionism no longer a dirty word in the United States and Biden promising to prioritize American workers and suppliers, the Canadian government’s job remains the same as it ever was: making sure the U.S. understands Canada’s mission-critical role in its own economic priorities.

“We’re both going to be better off on both sides of the border, as we have been in the past, if we orient ourselves toward this global competition as one force,” says Gerald Butts, vice-chairman of the political-risk consultancy Eurasia Group and a former principal secretary to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“It served us extraordinarily well in the past … and I have no reason to believe it won’t serve us well in the future.”

Last month, GM announced a billion-dollar plan to build its new all-electric BrightDrop EV600 van in Ingersoll, Ont., at Canada’s first large-scale EV manufacturing plant for delivery vehicles.

That investment, Volpe says, assumes Canada will take the steps necessary to help build a homegrown battery industry — with projects such as a new Niagara-region battery plant pointing the way — drawing on the country’s rare-earth resources like lithium and cobalt that are waiting to be extracted in northern Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere.

Given that the EV industry is still in his infancy, the free market alone won’t be enough to ensure those resources can be extracted and developed, he says.

“General Motors made a billion-dollar bet on Canada because it’s going to assume that the Canadian government — this one or the next one — is going to commit” to building that business.

Such an investment would pay dividends well beyond the auto sector, considering the federal Liberal government’s commitment to lowering greenhouse gas-emissions, including a 2035 EV mandate, and meeting targets set out in the Paris climate accord.

“If you make investments in renewable energy and utility storage using battery technology, you can build an industry at scale that the auto industry can borrow,” Volpe says.

Major manufacturing, retail and office facilities would be able to use that technology to help “shave the peak” off Canada’s GHG emissions and achieve those targets, all the while paving the way for a self-sufficient electric-vehicle industry.

“You’d be investing in the exact same technology you’d use in a car.”

There’s one problem, says Robinson: the lithium-ion batteries on roads right now might not be where the industry ultimately lands.

“We’re not done with with battery technology,” Robinson says. “What you don’t want to do is invest in a technology that is that is rapidly evolving, and could potentially become obsolete going forward.”

Fuel cells — energy-efficient, hydrogen-powered units that work like batteries, but without the need for constant recharging — continue to be part of the conversation, he adds.

“The amount of investment is huge, and you want to be sure that you’re making the right decision, so you don’t find yourself behind the curve just as all that capacity is coming online.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News