Biomass energy gets a boost

Texas Proposition 7 Energy Fund will finance ERCOT grid reliability via loans and grants for new on-demand natural gas plants, maintenance, and modernization, administered by the Public Utility Commission of Texas after Winter Storm Uri.

Key Points

State-managed fund providing loans and grants to expand and upgrade ERCOT power generation for grid reliability.

✅ $7.2B incentives for new dispatchable plants in ERCOT

✅ Administered by Public Utility Commission of Texas

✅ Aims to prevent outages like Winter Storm Uri

Texans are set to vote on Tuesday on a constitutional amendment to determine whether the state will create a special fund for financing the "construction, maintenance, and modernization of its electric generating facilities."

The energy fund would be administered and used only by the Public Utility Commission of Texas to provide loans and grants to maintain and upgrade electric generating facilities and improve electricity reliability across the state.

The biggest chunk of the fund, $7.2 billion, would go into loans and incentives to build new power-generating facilities in the ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas) region, where ERCOT has issued an RFP for winter capacity to address seasonal concerns.

The proposal, titled Proposition 7, is one of several electricity market reforms under consideration by lawmakers and regulators in Texas to avoid another energy crisis like the one caused by a deadly winter storm in February 2021.

That storm, known as Winter Storm Uri, left millions without power, water and heat for days as ERCOT struggled to prevent a grid collapse after the shutdown of an unusually large amount of generation, and bailout proposals soon surfaced in the Legislature as the market reeled.

Pablo Vegas, president and CEO of ERCOT, emphasized the grid has become more “volatile” given the current resources, as the Texas power grid faces recurring challenges.

“The complexities of managing a growing demand, and a very dynamic load environment with those types of resources becomes more and more challenging,” Vegas said Tuesday during a meeting of the ERCOT board of directors.

Vegas said one solution to overcome the challenge is investing in power production that is available on demand, like power plants fueled by natural gas. Those plants can help during times when the need for electricity strains the supply.

“With the passing of Proposition 7 on the ballot this November, we’ll see those incentives combined to incentivize a more balanced development strategy going forward,” Vegas told board members.

If Proposition 7 is passed by voters, it would enact S.B. 2627, which establishes an advisory committee to oversee the fund and the various projects it could be used for, amid severe-heat blackout risks that affect the broader U.S. $5 billion would be transferred from the General Revenue Fund to the Texas Energy Fund if Proposition 7 passes.

Opposition for Proposition 7 comes from the Lone Star chapter of the Sierra Club, an environmental organization based in Austin and which has issued a statement on Gov. Abbott's demands regarding grid policy. Cyrus Reed, conservation director of the Lone Star chapter, said the Texas energy fund is slated to benefit private utilities to build gas plants using taxpayer’s money.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Maryland Renewable Energy Violations highlight RPS compliance gaps as facilities selling renewable energy certificates, including waste-to-energy, biomass, and paper mills, face emissions and permit issues, prompting PSC and Attorney General scrutiny of environmental standards.

Key Points

Alleged RPS noncompliance by REC-eligible plants, prompting PSC review and potential decertification under Maryland law.

✅ Complaint targets waste-to-energy, biomass plants, and paper mills

✅ Facilities risk loss of REC certification for environmental violations

✅ PSC may investigate nonreporting; AG reviewing evidence

Many facilities that supply Maryland with renewable energy have exceeded pollution limits or otherwise broken environmental rules, violating a state law, according to a complaint sent by environmental groups to state energy and law enforcement officials.

Maryland law says that any company that contributes to a state renewable energy goal — half the state’s energy portfolio must come from renewable sources by 2030 — must “substantially comply” with rules on air and water quality and waste management. The complaint says more than two dozen power generators, including paper mills and trash incinerators, have records of formal or informal enforcement actions by environmental authorities.

For years, environmental groups have criticized Maryland policy that counts power plants that produce planet-warming carbon dioxide and health-threatening pollution as “renewable” energy generation, and similar tensions have emerged in California’s reliance on fossil fuels despite ambitious targets, but lawmakers concerned about protecting industrial jobs have resisted reforms. The renewable label qualifies the companies for subsidies drawn from energy bills across the state.

In a complaint filed this week, the groups asked the attorney general and Public Service Commission to step in.

“We’re subsidizing companies to produce dirty energy, but we’re also using ratepayer money to support companies that in many instances are paying environmental fines or just flouting the law,” said Timothy Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “There’s no one to hold them to account in Maryland.”

A spokeswoman for Attorney General Brian Frosh said his office would review the complaint, which was signed by Whitehouse and Mike Ewall, executive director of the Energy Justice Network.

Public Service Commission officials said the facilities must notify them if found out of compliance with environmental rules, while at the federal level FERC action on aggregated DERs is shaping market participation, and the commission can then revoke certification under the state renewable energy program. In a statement, commission officials said they would launch an investigation if any facility had failed to notify them of any environmental violations, and encouraged anyone with evidence of such a transgression to file a complaint.

Companies named in the document accused the groups of painting an inaccurate picture.

“This complaint is based on misleading arguments designed to halt waste-to-energy practices that have clear environmental benefits recognized by the global scientific community,” said Jim Connolly, vice president of environment, health and safety for Wheelabrator, which owns a Baltimore trash incinerator.

Maryland launched its renewable energy program in 2004, diversifying the state’s energy portfolio with more environmentally friendly sources of power, even as regional debates over a Maine-Québec transmission line highlight cross-border impacts. Under the program, separate from the electricity they generate and sell to the grid, renewable power facilities can sell what are known as renewable energy certificates. Utilities such as Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. are required to buy a growing number of the certificates each year, essentially subsidizing the renewable energy facilities with money from ratepayer bills.

A dozen types of power generation qualify to sell the certificates: Solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric plants, as well as “biomass” facilities that burn wood and other organic matter, waste-to-energy plants that burn household trash and paper mills that burn a byproduct known as black liquor.

The complaint focuses on waste incinerators, biomass plants and paper mills, all of which environmental groups have cast as counter to the renewable energy program’s environmental goals, even as ACORE criticized a coal and nuclear subsidy proposal in federal proceedings.

“By subsidizing these corporations, Maryland is diverting the hard-earned income of Maryland ratepayers to wealthy corporations with poor environmental compliance records and undermining the state’s transition to clean renewable energy,” Whitehouse and Ewall wrote.

For example, they note that the Wheelabrator plant in Southwest Baltimore has been fined for exceeding mercury limits in the past. That occurred in 2011, when the plant settled with state regulators for violations in 2010 and 2009.

Connolly said there is “no question” the facility complies with Maryland’s renewable energy law.

Incinerators in Montgomery County and in Fairfax County, Virginia, that are owned by Covanta and sell the energy certificates in Maryland have been cited for accidental fires inside both facilities. The Maryland incinerator violated emissions rules in 2014, the same year that New Jersey forbade the Virginia facility from selling energy certificates into that state’s renewable energy program over concerns it wasn’t following ash testing regulations.

James Regan, a spokesman for Covanta, said both facilities “have excellent compliance records and they operate well below their permitted limits.” He said the Virginia facility is complying with ash testing requirements, and that both facilities emit far lower levels of pollutants such as particulate matter than vehicles do.

“It’s clear to us there’s a lot of misleading and wrong information in this document," Regan said.

The Environmental Protection Agency endorsed waste-to-energy facilities under former President Barack Obama because, while burning household trash emits carbon dioxide, scientists said that still had a smaller impact on global warming than sending trash to landfills, even as industry groups have backed the EPA in a legal challenge to the ACE rule as regulatory approaches shifted.

Environmentalists and community groups say the facilities still are harmful because they emit high levels of pollutants such as mercury, nitrogen oxides and lead. The concerns prompted Baltimore City Council to pass an ordinance in February that tightened emissions limits on the Wheelabrator facility, even as the new EPA pollution limits for coal and gas plants are being proposed, so dramatically that the company said it would no longer be able to operate once the rules go into effect in 2022.

The complaint does not mention the century-old Luke paper mill in Western Maryland that long faced criticism for its participation in the renewable energy program, but which owner Verso Co. closed this year.

It does say several of paper company WestRock’s mills in North Carolina and Virginia have faced both formal and informal EPA enforcement actions for violation of the Clean Water Act, including evolving EPA wastewater limits for power plants and other facilities, and the Clean Air Act. A WestRock spokesperson could not be reached for comment.

The complaint also says a large biomass facility in South Boston, Virginia, owned by the Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative has a record of noncompliance with the Clean Air Act over three years.

John Rainey, the plant’s operations director, said it “experienced some small exceedances to its permit limits,” but that it addressed the issues with Virginia environmental officials and has installed new technology.

All those plants have sold credits in Maryland.

Whitehouse said the environmental groups’ goal is to clean up Maryland’s renewable energy program. They did not file a lawsuit because he said there was no clear cause of action to take the state to court, but said he hopes the complaint nonetheless spurs action.

“It’s not acceptable in a clean energy program that we’re subsidizing some of the most dirty sources of energy,” he said. “Those sources aren’t even in compliance with the law, and no one seems to care.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Biofuels vs EV Subsidies examines tradeoffs in decarbonization, greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy deployment, charging infrastructure, energy security, lifecycle emissions, and transportation sector policy to meet climate goals and accelerate sustainable mobility.

Key Points

Policy tradeoffs weighing biofuels and EVs to cut GHGs, boost energy security, and advance clean transportation.

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

California is at the forefront of the transition to a greener economy, driven by its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. As part of its strategy, the state is grappling with the question of whether it should subsidize out-of-state biofuels or in-state electric vehicles (EVs) to meet these goals. Both options come with their own sets of benefits and challenges, and the decision carries significant implications for the state’s environmental, economic, and energy landscapes.

The Case for Biofuels

Biofuels have long been promoted as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. They are made from organic materials such as agricultural crops, algae, and waste, which means they can potentially reduce carbon emissions in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. In the context of California, biofuels—particularly ethanol and biodiesel—are viewed as a way to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is one of the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsidizing out-of-state biofuels can help California reduce its reliance on imported oil while promoting the development of biofuel industries in other states. This approach may have immediate benefits, as biofuels are widely available and can be blended with conventional fuels to lower carbon emissions right away. It also allows the state to diversify its energy sources, improving energy security by reducing dependency on oil imports.

Moreover, biofuels can be produced in many regions across the United States, including rural areas. By subsidizing out-of-state biofuels, California could foster economic development in these regions, creating jobs and stimulating agricultural innovation. This approach could also support farmers who grow the feedstock for biofuel production, boosting the agricultural economy in the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks. The environmental benefits of biofuels are often debated. Critics argue that the production of biofuels—particularly those made from food crops like corn—can contribute to deforestation, water pollution, and increased food prices. Additionally, biofuels are not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, as their production and combustion still release greenhouse gases. When considering whether to subsidize biofuels, California must also account for the full lifecycle emissions associated with their production and use.

The Case for Electric Vehicles

In contrast to biofuels, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a more direct pathway to reducing emissions from transportation. EVs are powered by electricity, and when coupled with renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, they can provide a nearly zero-emission solution for personal and commercial transportation. California has already invested heavily in EV infrastructure, including expanding its network of charging stations and exploring how EVs can support grid stability through vehicle-to-grid approaches, and offering incentives for consumers to purchase EVs.

Subsidizing in-state EVs could stimulate job creation and innovation within California's thriving clean-tech industry, with other states such as New Mexico projecting substantial economic gains from transportation electrification, and the state has already become a hub for electric vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla, Rivian, and several battery manufacturers. Supporting the EV industry could further strengthen California’s position as a global leader in green technology, attracting investment and fostering growth in related sectors such as battery manufacturing, renewable energy, and smart grid technology.

Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are substantial. As the electric grid becomes cleaner with an increasing share of renewable energy, EVs will become even greener, with lower lifecycle emissions than biofuels. By prioritizing EVs, California could further reduce its carbon footprint while also achieving its long-term climate goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

However, there are challenges. EV adoption in California remains a significant undertaking, requiring major investments in infrastructure as they challenge state power grids in the near term, technology, and consumer incentives. The cost of EVs, although decreasing, still remains a barrier for many consumers. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is essential for EV batteries. While renewable energy is expanding, California’s grid is still reliant on fossil fuels to some degree, and in other jurisdictions such as Canada's 2019 electricity mix fossil generation remains significant, meaning that the full emissions benefit of EVs is not realized until the grid is entirely powered by clean energy.

A Balancing Act

The debate between subsidizing out-of-state biofuels and in-state electric vehicles is ultimately a question of how best to allocate California’s resources to meet its climate and economic goals. Biofuels may offer a quicker fix for reducing emissions from existing vehicles, but their long-term benefits are more limited compared to the transformative potential of electric vehicles, even as some analysts warn of policy pitfalls that could complicate the transition.

However, biofuels still have a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy-duty transportation, where electrification may not be as feasible in the near future. Thus, a mixed strategy that includes both subsidies for EVs and biofuels may be the most effective approach.

Ultimately, California’s decision will likely depend on a combination of factors, including technological advancements, 2021 electricity lessons, and the pace of renewable energy deployment, and the state’s ability to balance short-term needs with long-term environmental goals. The road ahead is not easy, but California's leadership in clean energy will be crucial in shaping the nation’s response to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Nova Scotia Power Rate Increase 2023-2024 approved by the UARB lifts electricity rates 14 percent, citing fuel costs and investments, despite Bill 212; includes ROE 9 percent, decarbonization deferral, and a storm cost recovery rider.

Key Points

An approved UARB rate case raising electricity bills about 14% over 2023-2024, with ROE 9% and cost recovery tools.

✅ UARB approves average 6.9% annual increases for 2023 and 2024.

✅ Maintains 9% ROE; sets storm cost rider trial and decarbonization deferral.

✅ Government opposed via Bill 212, but settlement mostly upheld.

Nova Scotia regulators approved a 14 per cent electricity rate hike on Thursday, defying calls by Premier Tim Houston to reject the increase.

Rates will rise on average by 6.9 per cent each year in 2023 and 2024.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the NL Consumer Advocate called an 18 per cent electricity rate hike unacceptable amid affordability concerns.

The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB) issued a 203-page decision ratifying most of the elements in a settlement agreement reached between Nova Scotia Power and customer groups after Houston's government legislated a rate, spending and profit cap on the utility in November.

The board said approval was in the public interest and the increase is "reasonable and appropriate."

"The board cannot simply disallow N.S. Power's reasonable costs to make rates more affordable. These principles ensure fair rates and the financial health of a utility so it can continue to invest in the system providing services to its customers," the three-member panel wrote.

"While the board can (and has) disallowed costs found to be imprudent or unreasonable, absent such a finding, N.S. Power's costs must be reflected in the rates."

In addition to the 14 per cent hike, the board maintained Nova Scotia Power's current return on equity of 9 per cent, with an earnings band of 8.75 to 9.25 per cent. It agreed in principle to establish a decarbonization deferral account to pay for the retirement of coal plants and related decommissioning costs, and implemented a storm cost recovery rider for a three-year trial period.

The board rejected several items in the agreement, including rolling some Maritime Link transmission capital projects into consumers' rates.

Nova Scotia Power welcomed the ruling in a statement, describing it as "the culmination of an extensive and transparent regulatory process over the past year."

Natural Resources and Renewables Minister Tory Rushton, who has said the government cannot order lower power rates in Nova Scotia, stated the UARB decision was not what the government wanted, but he did not indicate the government has any plans to bring forward legislation to overturn it. 

"We're disappointed by the decision today. We've always been very clear that we were standing by ratepayers right from the get-go but we also respect the independent body of the UARB and their decision today."

Pressure from the province
Houston claimed the settlement breached his government's legislation, known as Bill 212 in Nova Scotia, which he said was intended to protect ratepayers. It capped rates to cover non-fuel costs by 1.8 per cent. It did not cap rates to cover fuel costs or energy efficiency programs.

Bill 212 was passed after the board concluded weeks of public hearings into Nova Scotia Power's request for an electricity rate increase, its first general rate application in 10 years. Nova Scotia Power is a subsidiary of Halifax-based Emera, which is a publicly traded company.

The legislation triggered credit downgrades from two credit rating agencies who said it compromised the independence of the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, electricity users have begun paying for Muskrat Falls as project costs flow through rates, highlighting broader pressures on Atlantic Canada utilities.

In its decision, the board accepted that legislation was intended to protect ratepayers but did not preclude increases in rates.

"Given the exclusion of fuel and purchased power costs when these were expected to cause significant upward pressure on rates, it also did not preclude large increases in rates. Instead, the protection afforded by the Public Utilities Act amendments appears to be focused on N.S. Power's non-fuel costs, with several amendments targeting N.S. Power's cost of capital and earnings."

The board noted the province was the only intervenor in the rate case to object to the settlement.

Opposition reaction
Rushton said despite the outcome, Bill 212 achieved its goal, which was to protect ratepayers.

"Without Bill 212 the rates would have actually been higher," he said. "It would have double-digit rates for this year and next year and now it's single digits."

NDP Leader Claudia Chender said the end result is that Nova Scotians are still facing "incredibly unaffordable power."

Similar criticism emerged in Saskatchewan after an 8 per cent SaskPower increase, which the NDP opposed during provincial debates.

"It's really unfortunate for a lot of Nova Scotians who are heading into a freezing weekend where heat is not optional."

Chender said a different legislative approach is needed to change the regulatory system, and more needs to be done to help people pay their electricity bills.

Liberal MLA Kelly Regan echoed that sentiment.

"There are lots of people who can absorb this. There are a lot of people who cannot, and those are the people that we should be worried about right now. This is why we've been saying all along the government needs to actually give money directly to Nova Scotians who need help with power rates."

Rushton said the government has introduced programs to help Nova Scotians pay for heat, including raising the income threshold to access the Heating Assistance Rebate Program and creating incentives to install heat pumps.

Elsewhere, some governments have provided a lump-sum credit on electricity bills to ease short-term costs for households.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One Power Restoration showcases outage recovery after a severe windstorm, with crews repairing downed power lines, broken poles and crossarms, partnering with utilities and contractors to boost grid resilience and promote emergency kit preparedness.

Key Points

A coordinated response by Hydro One and partners to repair storm damage, restore outages, strengthen grid resilience.

✅ Crews repaired downed lines, broken poles, and crossarms

✅ Partners and contractors aided rapid outage restoration

✅ Investments improve grid resilience and emergency readiness

Hydro One crews have restored power to more than 277,000 customers following back-to-back storms, with impacts felt in communities like Sudbury where local crews worked to reconnect service, including a damaging windstorm on that caused 57 broken poles, 27 broken crossarms, as well as downed power lines and fallen trees on lines. Hydro One crews restored power to more than 140,000 customers within 24 hours of Friday's windstorm, even as Toronto outages persisted for some customers elsewhere.

'We understand power outages bring life to a halt, which is why we are continuously improving our storm response, as employee COVID-19 support demonstrated, while making smart investments in a resilient, reliable and sustainable electricity system to energize life for families, businesses and communities for years to come,' said David Lebeter, Chief Operating Officer, Hydro One. 'We thank our customers for their patience as our crews worked tirelessly, alongside our utility partners and contractors, including Ontario crews in Florida, to restore power as quickly and as safely as possible.'

Hydro One thanks all of its utility partners and contractors who assisted with restoration efforts following the windstorm (alongside similar Quebec outages that highlighted the broader impact), including Durham High Voltage, EPCOR, ERTH Power, K-Line Construction Ltd., Lakeland Power Distribution Ltd., North Bay Hydro, Sproule Powerline Construction Ltd. and Valard Construction.

Hydro One encourages customers to restock their emergency kits following these storms, which utilities such as BC Hydro have also characterized as atypical, and to be aware of support programs like our pandemic relief fund that can help during difficult periods, to ensure they're prepared for an emergency or extended power outage.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Rising Greenhouse Gas Concentrations drive climate change, with CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide surging; WMO data show higher radiative forcing, elevated pre-industrial baselines, and persistent atmospheric concentrations despite Paris Agreement emissions pledges.

Key Points

Increasing atmospheric CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide levels that raise radiative forcing and drive warming.

✅ WMO data show CO2 at 407.8 ppm in 2018, above decade average

✅ Methane and nitrous oxide surged, elevating total radiative forcing

✅ Concentrations differ from emissions; sinks absorb about half

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says the increase in CO2 was just above the average rise recorded over the last decade.

Levels of other warming gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have also surged by above average amounts.

Since 1990 there's been an increase of 43% in the warming effect on the climate of long lived greenhouse gases.

The WMO report looks at concentrations of warming gases in the atmosphere rather than just emissions.

The difference between the two is that emissions refer to the amount of gases that go up into the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels, such as burning coal for coal-fired electricity generation and from deforestation.

Concentrations are what's left in the air after a complex series of interactions between the atmosphere, the oceans, the forests and the land. About a quarter of all carbon emissions are absorbed by the seas, and a similar amount by land and trees, while technologies like carbon capture are being explored to remove CO2.

Using data from monitoring stations in the Arctic and all over the world, researchers say that in 2018 concentrations of CO2 reached 407.8 parts per million (ppm), up from 405.5ppm a year previously.

This increase was above the average for the last 10 years and is 147% of the "pre-industrial" level in 1750.

The WMO also records concentrations of other warming gases, including methane and nitrous oxide, and some countries have reported declines in certain potent gases, as noted in US greenhouse gas controls reports, though global levels remain elevated. About 40% of the methane emitted into the air comes from natural sources, such as wetlands, with 60% from human activities, including cattle farming, rice cultivation and landfill dumps.

Methane is now at 259% of the pre-industrial level and the increase seen over the past year was higher than both the previous annual rate and the average over the past 10 years.

Nitrous oxide is emitted from natural and human sources, including from the oceans and from fertiliser-use in farming. According to the WMO, it is now at 123% of the levels that existed in 1750.

Last year's increase in concentrations of the gas, which can also harm the ozone layer, was bigger than the previous 12 months and higher than the average of the past decade.

What concerns scientists is the overall warming impact of all these increasing concentrations. Known as total radiative forcing, this effect has increased by 43% since 1990, and is not showing any indication of stopping.

There is no sign of a slowdown, let alone a decline, in greenhouse gases concentration in the atmosphere despite all the commitments under the Paris agreement on climate change and the ongoing global energy transition efforts," said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas.

"We need to translate the commitments into action and increase the level of ambition for the sake of the future welfare of mankind," he added.

"It is worth recalling that the last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was three to five million years ago. Back then, the temperature was 2-3C warmer, sea level was 10-20m higher than now," said Mr Taalas.

The UN Environment Programme will report shortly on the gap between what actions countries are taking to cut carbon, for example where Australia's emissions rose 2% recently, and what needs to be done to keep under the temperature targets agreed in the Paris climate pact.

Preliminary findings from this study, published during the UN Secretary General's special climate summit last September, indicated that emissions continued to rise during 2018, although global emissions flatlined in 2019 according to the IEA.

Both reports will help inform delegates from almost 200 countries who will meet in Madrid next week for COP25, following COP24 in Katowice the previous year, the annual round of international climate talks.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News