Coal-to-gas technology heading to China

Alberta Coal Phase-Out signals a clean energy transition, replacing coal with natural gas and renewables, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, leveraging a carbon levy, and supporting workers in Alberta's evolving electricity market.

Key Points

Alberta Coal Phase-Out moves power from coal to lower-emission natural gas and renewables to reduce grid emissions.

✅ Last coal plant closed: Genesee Generating Station, Sept 30, 2023

✅ Shift to natural gas and renewables lowers emissions

✅ Carbon levy and incentives accelerated clean power build-out

The closure of the Genesee Generating Station on September 30, 2023, marked a significant milestone in Alberta's energy history, as the province moved to retire coal power by 2023 ahead of its 2030 provincial deadline. The Genesee, located near Calgary, was the province's last remaining coal-fired power plant. Its closure represents the culmination of a multi-year effort to transition Alberta's electricity sector away from coal and towards cleaner sources of energy.

For decades, coal was the backbone of Alberta's electricity grid. Coal-fired plants were reliable and relatively inexpensive to operate. However, coal also has a significant environmental impact. The burning of coal releases greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, a major contributor to climate change. Coal plants also produce air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, which can cause respiratory problems and acid rain, and in some regions electricity is projected to get dirtier as gas use expands.

In recognition of these environmental concerns, the Alberta government began to develop plans to phase out coal-fired power generation in the early 2000s. The government implemented a number of policies to encourage the shift from coal to cleaner energy such as natural gas and renewable energy. These policies included providing financial incentives for the construction of new natural gas plants and renewable energy facilities, as well as imposing a carbon levy on coal-fired generation.

The phase-out of coal was also driven by economic factors. The cost of natural gas has declined significantly in recent years, making it a more competitive fuel source for electricity generation as producers switch to gas under evolving market conditions. Additionally, the Alberta government faced increasing pressure from the federal government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The transition away from coal has not been without its challenges. Coal mining and coal-fired power generation have long been important parts of Alberta's economy. The closure of coal plants has resulted in job losses in the affected communities. The government has implemented programs to help workers transition to new jobs in the clean energy sector.

Despite these challenges, the closure of the Genesee Generating Station is a positive development for Alberta's environment and climate. Coal-fired power generation is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta, and recent wind generation outpacing coal underscores the sector's transformation. The closure of the Genesee is expected to result in a significant reduction in emissions, helping Alberta to meet its climate change targets.

The transition away from coal also presents opportunities for Alberta. The province has vast natural gas resources, which can be used to generate electricity with lower emissions than coal. Alberta is also well-positioned to develop renewable energy sources, such as wind power and solar power. These renewable energy sources can help to further reduce emissions and create new jobs in the clean energy sector.

The closure of the Genesee Generating Station is a significant milestone in Alberta's energy history. It represents the end of an era for coal-fired power generation in the province, a shift mirrored by the UK's last coal station going offline earlier this year. However, it also marks the beginning of a new era for Alberta's energy sector. By transitioning to cleaner sources of energy, Alberta can reduce its environmental impact and create a more sustainable energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

UK Market Stability Outlook remains febrile as the Bank of England, Treasury, and OBR forecasts shape fiscal policy, interest rates, gilt yields, inflation, energy bills, and pound sterling, with Oct. 31 guidance to reassure investors.

Key Points

A view of investor confidence as BOE policy, fiscal plans, and energy aid shape inflation and interest rates.

✅ Markets await Oct. 31 fiscal statement and OBR projections

✅ Energy support design drives inflation and disposable income

✅ Pound weakness adds imported inflation; rates seen up 75 bps

Bank of England Deputy Governor Dave Ramsden said financial markets are still unsettled about the outlook for the UK and that a Treasury statement due on Oct. 31 may provide some reassurance.

Speaking to the Treasury Committee in Parliament, Ramsden said officials in government and the central bank are dealing with huge economic shocks, notably the surge in energy prices that came with Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Investors are reassessing where interest rates and the fiscal stance are headed.

“Markets remain quite febrile,” Ramsden told members of Parliament in London on Monday. “Things have not settled down yet.”

He described the events following Prime Minister Liz Truss’s ill-fated fiscal statement on Sept. 23, which set out a series of tax cuts funded by borrowing that spooked investors and triggered a rout in UK assets. Ramsden said those events damaged the UK’s credibility among investors, but reversing that program and Truss’s decision to step aside have helped the nation regain confidence.

“Credibility is hard won and easily lost,” Ramsden said. “That credibility is being recovered. That has to be followed through. A return to the kind of stability around policy making and around the framing of fiscal events will be really important.”

He said the issue with the Sept. 23 statement was that “it had one side of the fiscal arithmetic in it” and that the decision to include forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility will help underpin the confidence investors have in assessing the UK budget due out next week, including potential moves to end the link between gas and electricity prices for consumers.

“What we are going to get on Oct. 31 will be very important,” Ramsden said, “as it will address measures such as the price cap on household energy bills and other fiscal choices.”

“My sense is that will take account of all the statements on both the revenue and on the spending side.”

The central bank already was getting some information from Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt’s team about the fiscal statement due. Hunt said last week he’d curtail government plans to subsidize household fuel bills in April, when a 16% decrease in energy bills is anticipated, instead of letting it run as long as planned and replace it with a more targeted program. 

“To the extent possible, we will obviously have a little bit of time to take account of that before we make our decisions later next week,” Ramsden said.

With Truss stepping down in the next day and handing power to Rishi Sunak, it isn’t certain the Oct. 31 statement will go ahead as planned. Ramsden’s remarks confirm reports that Hunt is preparing to make the statement, amid a free electricity debate in the industry, even before Sunak names his team.

Any hint about what sort of package Hunt will offer on energy is crucial to the BOE’s forecasts. Without aid for energy, consumers will be exposed to high winter heating and electricity costs and to the full force of whatever happens in natural gas and electricity markets, and that will have a big impact on how much disposable income is available to households.

The energy plan, alongside the energy security bill, “will be a key element, as obviously it will have a bearing on the path for inflation, which is critical, but also how much additional support relative to what we were assuming at the time of the September MPC there will be for households at different points in the income distribution,” Ramsden added.

Investors currently expect the BOE to hike rates by 75 basis points next week.

Ramsden also said the BOE is watching the pound’s decline to assess how that changes the outlook for inflation.

“We have to take account of it,” Ramsden said. “When sterling deprreciaties that feeds through to imported inflation. It’s fallen quite significantly. The overall trend is down.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

NuScale SMR Design Certification marks NRC Phase 6 FSER approval, validating small modular reactor safety and design review, enabling UAMPS deployment at Idaho National Laboratory and advancing DOE partnerships and Canadian vendor assessments.

Key Points

It is the NRC FSER approval confirming NuScale SMR safety design, enabling licensed deployment and vendor reviews.

✅ NRC Phase 6 FSER concludes design certification review

✅ Valid 15 years; enables site-independent licensing

✅ 60 MW modules, up to 12 per plant; UAMPS project at Idaho National Laboratory

US-based NuScale Power announced on 28 August that the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had completed Phase 6 review—the last and final phase—of the Design Certification Application (DCA) for its small modular reactor (SMR) with the issuance of the Final Safety Evaluation Report (FSER).

The FSER represents completion of the technical review and approval of the NuScale SMR design. With this final phase of NuScale’s DCA now complete, customers can proceed with plans to develop NuScale power plants as Ontario breaks ground on first SMR projects advance, with the understanding that the NRC has approved the safety aspects of the NuScale design.

“This is a significant milestone not only for NuScale, but also for the entire US nuclear sector and the other advanced nuclear technologies that will follow,” said NuScale chairman and CEO John Hopkins.

“The approval of NuScale’s design is an incredible accomplishment and we would like to extend our deepest thanks to the NRC for their comprehensive review, to the US Department of Energy (DOE) for its continued commitment to our successful private-public partnership to bring the country’s first SMR to market, and to the many other individuals who have dedicated countless hours to make this extraordinary moment a reality,” he added. “Additionally, the cost-shared funding provided by Congress over the past several years has accelerated NuScale’s advancement through the NRC Design Certification process.”

NuScale’s design certification application was accepted by the NRC in March 2017. NuScale spent over $500 million, with the backing of Fluor, and over 2 million hours to develop the information needed to prepare its DCA application, an effort that, similar to Rolls-Royce’s MoU with Exelon, underscores private-sector engagement to advance nuclear innovation. The company also submitted 14 separate Topical Reports in addition to the over 12,000 pages for its DCA application and provided more than 2 million pages of supporting information for NRC audits.

NuScale’s SMR is a fully factory-fabricated, 60MW power module based on pressurised water reactor technology. The scalable design means a power plant can house up to 12 individual power modules, and jurisdictions like Ontario have announced plans for four SMRs at Darlington to leverage modularity.

The NuScale design is so far the only small modular reactor to undergo a design certification review by the NRC, while in the UK UK approval for Rolls-Royce SMR is expected by mid-2024, signaling parallel regulatory progress. The design certification process addresses the various safety issues associated with the proposed nuclear power plant design, independent of a specific site and is valid for 15 years from the date of issuance.

NuScale's first customer, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), is planning a 12-module SMR plant at a site at the Idaho National Laboratory as efforts like TerraPower's molten-salt mini-reactor advance in parallel. Construction was scheduled to start in 2023, with the first module expected to begin operation in 2026. However, UAMPS has informed NuScale it needs to push back the timeline for operation of the first module from 2026 to 2029, the Washington Examiner reported on 24 August.

The NuScale SMR is also undergoing a vendor design review with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, amid provincial activity such as New Brunswick's SMR debate that highlights domestic interest. NuScale has signed agreements with entities in the USA, Canada, Romania, the Czech Republic, and Jordan.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Brazil ICMS Tax Cap limits state VAT on fuels, natural gas, electricity, communications, and transit, promising short-term price relief amid inflation, with federal compensation to states and potential legal challenges affecting investments and ANP auctions.

Key Points

A policy capping state VAT at 17-18 percent on fuels, electricity, and services to temper prices and inflation.

✅ Caps VAT to 17-18% on fuels, power, telecom, transit

✅ Short-term relief; medium-long term impact uncertain

✅ Federal compensation; potential court challenges, investment risk

Brazil’s congress approved a bill that limits the ICMS tax rate that state governments can charge on fuels, natural gas, electricity, communications, and public transportation. 

Local lawyers told BNamericas that the measure may reduce fuel and power prices in the short term, similar to Brazil power sector relief loans seen during the pandemic, but it is unlikely to produce any major effects in the medium and long term. 

In most states the ceiling was set at 17% or 18% and the federal government will pay compensation to the states for lost tax revenue until December 31, via reduced payments on debts that states owe the federal government.

The bill will become law once signed by President Jair Bolsonaro, who pushed strongly for the proposal with an eye on his struggling reelection campaign for the October presidential election. Double-digit inflation has turned into a major election issue and fuel and electricity prices have been among the main inflation drivers, as seen in EU energy-driven inflation across the bloc this year. Congress’ approval of the bill is seen by analysts as political victory for the Brazilian leader.

How much difference will it make?

Marcus Francisco, tax specialist and partner at Villemor Amaral Advogados, said that in the formation of fuel and electricity prices there are other factors, including high natural gas prices, that drive increases.

“In the case of fuels, if the barrel of oil [price] increases, automatically the final price for the consumer will go up. For electricity, on the other hand, there are several subsidies and policy choices such as Florida rejecting federal solar incentives that are part of the price and that can increase the rate [paid],” he said. 

There is also a possibility that some states will take the issue to the supreme court since ICMS is a key source of revenue for them, Francisco added.

Tiago Severini, a partner at law firm Vieira Rezende, said the comparison between the revenue impact and the effective price reduction, based on the estimates made by the states and the federal government, seems disproportionate, and, as seen in Europe, rolling back European electricity prices is often tougher than it appears. 

“In other words, a large tax collection impact is generated, which is quite unequal among the different states, for a not so strong price reduction,” he said.

“Due to the lack of clarity regarding the precision of the calculations involved, it’s difficult even to assess the adequacy of the offsets the federal government has been considering, and international cases such as France's new electricity pricing scheme illustrate how complex it can be to align fiscal offsets with regulatory constraints, to cover the cost it would have with the compensation for the states” Severini added.

The compensation ideas that are known so far include hiking other taxes, such as the social contribution on net profits (CSLL) that is paid by oil and gas firms focused on exploration and production.

“This can generate severe adverse effects, such as legal disputes, reduced investments in the country, and reduced attractiveness of the new auctions by [sector regulator] ANP, and costly interventions like the Texas electricity market bailout after extreme weather events,” Severini said. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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