50 Dirtiest U.S. Power Plants

By Electricity Forum


CSA Z463 Electrical Maintenance

Our customized live online or in‑person group training can be delivered to your staff at your location.

  • Live Online
  • 6 hours Instructor-led
  • Group Training Available
Regular Price:
$249
Coupon Price:
$199
Reserve Your Seat Today
Even as some of AmericaÂ’s dirtiest power plants start to clean up their act in terms of certain toxic emissions, the carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution linked to global warming from large, old, and inefficient electricity-generating facilities continues unchecked and could rise 34 percent by 2030, according to a report from the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project (EIP).

A searchable database ranking 378 U.S. power plants on carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx) and mercury pollution is now available online at http://www.dirtykilowatts.org.

The 12 states with the heaviest concentrations of the dirtiest power plants - in terms of total tons of carbon dioxide emitted - are: Texas (five, including two of the top 10 dirtiest plants); Pennsylvania (four); Indiana (four, including two of the top 10 dirtiest plants); Alabama (three); Georgia (three, including two of the top three dirtiest plants); North Carolina (three); Ohio (three); West Virginia (three); Wyoming (two); Florida (two); Kentucky (two); and New Mexico (two).

The "Dirty Kilowatts" report also ranks the worst power plants on the basis of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury, looking at all four pollutants both in terms of total tons of emissions and also emission rate (pounds per megawatt-hour of electricity produced). For example, just 14 percent of the 378 ranked fossil-fuel-burning power plants account for 40 percent of their sulfur dioxide emissions.

Taken together, the 378 plants ranked in this report represent about a third of all power plants tracked in EPAÂ’s inventory, but they account for almost 90 percent of the electricity generated by the plants in EPAÂ’s inventory, and approximately half of total U.S. electric generation. Plants in North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Indiana, and South Dakota top the non-CO2 rankings.

The EIP report notes: “Nationwide, the power plants that provide electricity to run our homes, businesses, and factories also account for 40 percent of carbon dioxide, roughly two thirds of sulfur dioxide, 22 percent of nitrogen oxides, and roughly a third of all mercury emissions (in the U.S.)… Power plants are major contributors to global warming, emitting billions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) each year. In addition, power plants emit millions of tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), pollutants that trigger asthma attacks and contribute to lung and heart disease, and cause smog and haze in cities and national parks. And, power plants emit dangerous toxins like mercury, a neurotoxin especially harmful to children and developing fetuses.”

Ilan Levin, counsel, Environmental Integrity Project, said: “While Congress is poised to seriously consider legislation to limit the greenhouse gases that made 2006 the hottest year on record, the electric power industry is racing to build a new fleet of coal-fired power plants that rely on conventional combustion technologies that would only accelerate global warming. Once utility companies secure their air pollution permits, we can expect them to argue that these new plants should be ‘grandfathered,’ or exempt from any pending limits on greenhouse gases. We’ve been through this before.

“When the original Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, the electric utility industry persuaded Congress to not impose strict pollution controls on old power plants, because they would soon be replaced by newer state-of-the-art facilities. Yet despite the industry’s promises, many of the nation’s oldest and dirtiest power plants continue to operate today. Americans pay the bill for that delay when they suffer the ill health consequences of breathing needlessly dirty air.”

Mary Ann Hitt, executive director of the regional nonprofit organization Appalachian Voices in Asheville, N.C., said: “On the ground in Appalachia, we see the impact of these dirty coal plants every day and in every part of our lives. We are losing homes and communities to mountaintop removal mining, and losing the lives of loved ones to health problems triggered by air pollution.”

Jan Jarrett, vice president, Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture), Harrisburg, PA, said: “This report shows, most of all, that the importance of strong environmental laws cannot be overstated. Reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen pollution from power plants are a direct result of a strong federal Clean Air Act, but it took more than 30 years. That’s one of the reasons we fought so hard for the Pennsylvania mercury rule, which will cut mercury pollution by 90 percent by 2015. We knew the federal government wasn’t about to take action, so the state of Pennsylvania had to. Now it’s time to demand cuts in carbon dioxide pollution to fight global warming.”

Valerie True, spokesperson, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, with offices in Georgia, Tennessee and North Carolina, said: “This report not only highlights the threats from old power plants, but the future risk should utility customers be forced to pay for the expansion of this dirty form of energy. Proposals for new coal-fired power plants are popping up across the nation. Given the imminent risks of global warming, the nation needs to take immediate action to clean up these old power plants and stop the construction of new coal-fired plants.”

Dean Hulse, member, Clean Electricity Committee of the Dakota Resource Council, Dickinson, N.D., said: “This report is the ‘canary in the coal mine’— it points out serious problems that require immediate attention. The global warming debate is over. We are heating up the earth, and the burning of coal is one of the biggest contributors of global warming pollution.

“Beyond the burning of coal is the issue of coal mining. Although not discussed in this report, the mining of coal damages land and water and moves farmers and ranchers off the land. In North Dakota, keeping the coal dinosaur alive hinders the economic development of renewable energy, including wind energy, in which North Dakota leads the nation.”

The new EIP report highlights ways to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants. First, the time has come to phase out and permanently retire the nationÂ’s oldest and least efficient plants, and reduce our dependence on coal. Reducing electricity demand, through smarter building codes, and low-cost conservation efforts such as weatherization of homes and installation of more efficient home and business appliances, will lead to CO2 reductions.

Investments in renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, should be encouraged, and investments in fossil fuel-based electric generation should be a last resort.

And, if new coal plants are to be built, then they must be designed to drastically reduce CO2 emissions. Carbon capture and sequestration have promise, and currently available and economically viable technologies – for example, “ultra-supercritical” designs for steam boilers, gas turbines (instead of steam), blending cleaner fuels with coal, such as natural gas and biomass – can almost double fossil-fuel-fired plants’ thermal efficiency, up to 60 percent, thus lowering CO2 emissions.

One bright spot in the EIP report: 37 years after the Clean Air Act, power plants are finally starting to clean up their sulfur dioxide emissions, thanks to a combination of factors including enforcement actions, tough state laws, and reductions anticipated from EPAÂ’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).

The scrubbers that power companies are beginning to install will reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by as much as 90 percent as some of the dirtiest plants. However, while CAIR establishes a two-phase cap for S02, ending at 2.5 million tons in Eastern states in 2015, due to early reductions and banking of credits for use later, the cap is unlikely to be met until well beyond 2015.

KEY EIP FINDINGS

Carbon Dioxide: Given the absence of any federal standards, carbon dioxide emissions from power plants are now at roughly 2.5 billion tons per year. About two-thirds of the heat energy that is consumed at a typical coal-fired power plant is wasted, and that inefficiency contributes directly to high CO2 emissions from these facilities. Eliminating CO2 emissions from existing power plants is currently technically unfeasible, but reducing electricity demand, through energy efficiency and conservation measures, would yield significant CO2 reductions in the near-term, while new technologies develop.

One major cause for concern: A wave of new coal-fired power plants are being permitted and built across the country. Absent aggressive national climate policy and the retirement of existing facilities, these new coal plants will contribute to a projected 34 percent increase in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions over the 2005-2030 period.

Large lignite-burning power plants in North Dakota and Texas rank among the worst CO2 polluters based on emission rate. Lignite is a low-grade fuel, abundant in places like Texas and North Dakota, and its comparatively low BTU (heat) value means more CO2 for the electricity it generates. Nine plants across 8 states rank in the top 50 for both overall emissions rate and overall tons of CO2 emitted: Texas (TXUÂ’s Martin Lake and Monticello), Montana (Colstrip), Minnesota (Sherburne County), Wyoming (Laramie River), Indiana (Schahfer), Florida (Big Bend), Nebraska (Gerald Gentleman), and North Dakota (Coal Creek).

Sulfur Dioxide. Power plants, especially those that burn coal, are by far the largest single contributor of SO2 pollution in the United States, accounting for approximately 67 percent of all SO2 emissions nationwide. The top 50 plants averaged 21.1 pounds of sulfur dioxide per megawatt-hour, compared to only one pound per megawatt-hour for similar plants equipped with state of the art scrubbers.

Of all 378 plants ranked, the top 50 plants with the worst emission rates accounted for 40 percent of SO2 emissions, but only 13.7 percent of electric generation.

Indiana (five plants), Ohio (eight plants), Pennsylvania (eight plants), and Georgia (six plants) have the heaviest concentrations of the dirtiest plants in the nation for SO2. Together, these four states accounted for more than half of all the top 50 emitters. PSI EnergyÂ’s Gallagher plant, in Indiana, claimed the top spot as the nationÂ’s dirtiest power plant, generating just over 40 pounds of sulfur dioxide per megawatt-hour of electricity.

Southern Company’s Bowen plant in Georgia continued to lead the nation as the top SO2 emitter, with a whopping 206,441 tons in 2006 – 20,000 tons more than it emitted in 2005, and 40,000 tons more than it emitted in 2004. Reliant’s Keystone plant in Pennsylvania was the number two highest emitter, with more than 160,000 tons of SO2. Both these plants are expected to install scrubbers by 2010, which should substantially bring down SO2 emissions.

Nitrogen Oxide: Nitrogen oxides emissions dropped slightly in 2006, and are expected to decline still further in eastern states over the next five years. Rules to limit the interstate transport of NOx during the summer ozone season in eastern states were adopted in the late nineties (the “NOx SIP Call”), and emission ceilings have been ratcheted steadily downward by law.

Also, the CAIR rule moves the Acid Rain (Phase 1) NOx cap forward a year, to 2009, and sets a 1.3 million ton cap in 2015. Lastly, tough new state standards like the Maryland Healthy Air Act should lead to additional reductions in year-round NOx emissions.

Unfortunately, this trend is not apparent in Western states where neither CAIR nor ozone transport rules apply. Many plants with high NOx emissions are located in these states, and in states not included in the NOx “SIP Call,” such as North Dakota, Minnesota, and Florida.

The top 50 plants had an average emission rate of 5.47 pounds of NOx per megawatt-hour, more than double the 2.57 lbs/MWh average for all 378 of the nation’s largest power plants. Of the 378 plants, the top 50 accounted for 25 percent of all NOx emissions but only 11.7 percent of net electric generation. Many plants in the top 50 are in states with less stringent NOx emission limits because they do not fall under the “NOx SIP call,” a federal rule designed to reduce summertime ozone in many eastern U.S. states. (NOx is a precursor to ground-level ozone.) This shows, not surprisingly, that electric utilities do not reduce NOx emissions unless they are required by law to do so. Of the 378 plants ranked, the top 50 accounted for 41.5 percent of NOx emissions, and only 28.7 percent of net generation. Arizona Public Service Company’s Four Corners (New Mexico), and TVA’s Paradise (Kentucky) plants topped the list, emitting 44,658 tons and 43,022 tons, respectively.

Mercury: Power plant mercury emissions remain steady as compared to previous years. EIP’s report ranks plants based on 2005 data, which is the most recent publicly available information from EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory. The 486 plants that are tracked in EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory reported 48.3 tons of mercury air emissions in 2005. Of these, this report ranks only the 274 “large” power plants (i.e., those plants that generated at least 2 million MWh in 2005). These largest 274 plants emitted 43.5 tons of mercury in 2005. Many plants are installing scrubbers to control sulfur dioxide, and mercury emissions should decline as a co-benefit of SO2 controls. But, EPA’s new power plant mercury rule is unlikely to have any measurable benefit in the short-term. Power plant mercury emissions are expected to decline to roughly 24 tons in 2020 – significantly higher than EPA’s so-called cap of 15 tons by 2018, as power plants “bank” pollution allowances in the early years of the rule’s implementation. Widespread use of banked allowances means that EPA’s cap of 15 tons will likely not be met until 2026 or beyond.

For all plants ranked for mercury, the top 50 plants with the highest emission rates together emitted 16 tons of mercury – a third of all power plant mercury pollution – but generated less than 18 percent of the electricity. For the third year in a row, American Electric Power’s Pirkey plant (Texas) and Reliant’s Shawville plant (Pennsylvania) are the top two dirtiest plants based on mercury emission rates. The top fifty power plant mercury polluters accounted for almost 21 tons, or 43 percent of the electric power industry’s mercury emissions. TXU’s Martin Lake (Texas) plant ranked number one, with 1,705 pounds of mercury emissions. Southern Company’s Scherer plant (Georgia) came in second, emitting 1,662 pounds. Southern Company and TXU also shared the third place spot, reporting 1,595 pounds of mercury emissions from these companies’ Miller (Alabama) and Monticello (Texas) plants. A total of 23 plants in 12 states ranked in the top 50 for both emission rate and total pounds emitted. Six Texas plants rank in the top 50 for both emission rate and total pounds and two of these plants, TXU’s Big Brown and American Electric Power’s Pirkey, rank in the top 10 for both measures.

Power plants are responsible for about 40 percent of all man-made CO2 emissions in the nation, and unlike emissions of SO2 and NOx, the electric power industryÂ’s CO2 emissions are projected to steadily rise. Carbon dioxide emissions contribute to global warming.

Sulfates (from SO2) are major components of the fine particle pollution that plagues many parts of the country, especially communities nearby or directly downwind of coal-fired power plants. Sulfur dioxide also interacts with NOx to form nitric and sulfuric acids, commonly known as acid rain, which damages forests and acidifies soil and waterways. Harvard School of Public Health studies have shown that SO2 emissions from power plants significantly harm the cardiovascular and respiratory health of people who live near the plants. According to EPA studies, fine particle pollution from power plants results in thousands of premature deaths each year.

Nitrogen oxide is tied to ground-level ozone, which is especially harmful to children and people with respiratory problems such as asthma. Ground-level ozone is formed when NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react in sunlight. NOx also reacts with ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to form fine particle pollution, which damages lung tissue and is linked to premature death. Small particles penetrate deeply into sensitive parts of the lungs and can cause or worsen respiratory disease such as emphysema and bronchitis, and aggravate heart disease.

Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of mercury air pollution, accounting for roughly 40 percent of all mercury emissions nationwide. Mercury is a highly toxic metal that, once released into the atmosphere, settles in lakes and rivers, where it moves up the food chain to humans. The Centers for Disease Control has found that roughly 10 percent of American women carry mercury concentrations at levels considered to put a fetus at risk of neurological damage.

Related News

Ontario plunging into energy storage as electricity supply crunch looms

Ontario Energy Storage Procurement accelerates grid flexibility as IESO seeks lithium batteries, pumped storage, compressed air, and flywheels to balance renewables, support EV charging, and complement gas peakers during Pickering refits and rising electricity demand.

 

Key Points

Ontario's plan to procure 2,500 MW of storage to firm renewables, aid EV charging, and add flexible grid capacity.

✅ 2,500 MW storage plus 1,500 MW gas for 2025-2027 reliability

✅ Mix: lithium batteries, pumped storage, compressed air, flywheels

✅ Enables VPPs via EVs, demand response, and hybrid solar-storage

 

Ontario is staring down an electricity supply crunch and amid a rush to secure more power, it is plunging into the world of energy storage — a relatively unknown solution for the grid that experts say could also change energy use at home.

Beyond the sprawling nuclear plants and waterfalls that generate most of the province’s electricity sit the batteries, the underground caverns storing compressed air to generate electricity, and the spinning flywheels waiting to store energy at times of low demand and inject it back into the system when needed.

The province’s energy needs are quickly rising, with the proliferation of electric vehicles and growing Canada-U.S. collaboration on EV adoption, and increasing manufacturing demand for electricity on the horizon just as a large nuclear plant that supplies 14 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is set to be retired and other units are being refurbished.

The government is seeking to extend the life of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, planning an import agreement for power with Quebec, rolling out conservation programs, and — controversially — relying on more natural gas to fill the looming gap between demand and supply, amid Northern Ontario sustainability debates.

Officials with the Independent Electricity System Operator say a key advantage of natural gas generation is that it can quickly ramp up and down to meet changes in demand. Energy storage can provide that same flexibility, those in the industry say.

Energy Minister Todd Smith has directed the IESO to secure 1,500 megawatts of new natural gas capacity between 2025 and 2027, along with 2,500 megawatts of clean technology such as energy storage that can be deployed quickly, which together would be enough to power the city of Toronto.

It’s a far cry from the 54 megawatts of energy storage in use in Ontario’s grid right now.

Smith said in an interview that it’s the largest active procurement for energy storage in North America.

“The one thing that we want to ensure that we do is continue to add clean generation as much as possible, and affordable and clean generation that’s reliable,” he said.

Rupp Carriveau, director of the Environmental Energy Institute at the University of Windsor, said the timing is good.

“The space is there, the technology is there, and the willingness among private industry to respond is all there,” he said. “I know of a lot of companies that have been rubbing their hands together, looking at this potential to construct storage capacity.”

Justin Rangooni, the executive director of Energy Storage Canada, said because of the relatively tight timelines, the 2,500 megawatts is likely to be mostly lithium batteries. But there are many other ways to store energy, other than a simple battery.

“As we get to future procurements and as years pass, you’ll start to see possibly pump storage, compressed air, thermal storage, different battery chemistry,” he said.

Pump storage involves using electricity during off-peak periods to pump water into a reservoir and slowly releasing it to run a turbine and generate electricity when it’s needed. Compressed air works similarly, and old salt caverns in Goderich, Ont., are being used to store the compressed air.

In thermal storage, electricity is used to heat water when demand is low and when it’s needed, water stored in tanks can be used as heat or hot water.

Flywheels are large spinning tops that can store kinetic energy, which can be used to power a turbine and produce electricity. A flywheel facility in Minto, Ont., also installed solar panels on its roof and became the first solar storage hybrid facility in Ontario, said a top IESO official.

Katherine Sparkes, the IESO’s director of innovation, research and development, said it’s exciting, from a grid perspective.

“As we kind of look to the future and we think about gas phase out and electrification, one of the big challenges that all power systems across North America and around the world are looking at is: how do you accommodate increasing amounts of variable, renewable resources and just make better use of your grid assets,” she said.

“Hybrids, storage generation pairings, gives you that opportunity to deal with the variability of renewables, so to store electricity when the sun isn’t shining, or the wind isn’t blowing, and use it when you need it to.”

The small amount of storage already in the system provides more fine tuning of the electricity system, whereas 2,500 megawatts will be a more “foundational” part of the toolkit, said Sparkes.

But what’s currently on the grid is far from the only storage in the province. Many commercial and industrial consumers, such as large manufacturing facilities or downtown office buildings, are using storage to manage their electricity usage, relying on battery energy when prices are high.

The IESO sees that as an opportunity and has changed market rules to allow those customers to sell electricity back to the grid when needed.

As well, the IESO has its eye on the thousands of mobile batteries in electric vehicles, a trend seen in California, that shuttle people around the province every day but sit unused for much of the time.

“If we can enable those batteries to work together in aggregation, or work with other types of technologies like solar or smart building systems in a configuration, like a group of technologies, that becomes a virtual power plant,” Sparkes said.

Peak Power, a company that seeks to “make power plants obsolete,” is running a pilot project with electric vehicles in three downtown Toronto office buildings in which the car batteries can provide electricity to reduce the facility’s overall demand during peak periods using vehicle-to-building charging with bidirectional chargers.

In that model, one vehicle can earn $8,000 per year, said cofounder and chief operating officer Matthew Sachs.

“Battery energy storage will change the energy industry in the same way and for the same reasons that refrigeration changed the milk industry,” he said.

“As you had refrigeration, you could store your commodity and that changed the distribution channels of it. So I believe that energy storage is going to radically change the distribution channels of energy.”

If every home has a solar panel, an electric vehicle and a residential battery, it becomes a generating station, a decentralization that’s not only more environmentally friendly, but also relies less on “monopolized utilities,” Sachs said.

In the next decade, energy demand from electric vehicles is projected to skyrocket, making vehicle-to-grid integration increasingly relevant, and Sachs said the grid can’t grow enough to accommodate a peak demand of hundreds of thousands of vehicles being plugged in to charge at the end of the workday commute. Authorities need to be looking at more incentives such as time-of-use pricing and price signals to ensure the demand is evened out, he said.

“It’s a big risk as much as it’s a big opportunity,” he said. “If we do it wrong, it will cost us billions to fix. If we do it right, it can save us billions.”

Jack Gibbons, the chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, said the provincial and federal governments need to fund and install bidirectional chargers in order to fully take advantage of electric vehicles.

“This is a huge missed opportunity,” he said.

 

Related News

View more

Biden's Announcement of a 100% Tariff on Chinese-Made Electric Vehicles

U.S. 100% Tariff on Chinese EVs aims to protect domestic manufacturing, counter subsidies, and reshape the EV market, but could raise prices, disrupt supply chains, invite retaliation, and complicate climate policy and trade relations.

 

Key Points

A 100% import duty on Chinese EVs to boost U.S. manufacturing, counter subsidies, and address supply chain risks.

✅ Protects domestic EV manufacturing and jobs

✅ Counters alleged subsidies and IP concerns

✅ May raise prices, limit choice, trigger retaliation

 

President Joe Biden's administration recently made headlines with its announcement of a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), marking a significant escalation in trade tensions between the two economic powerhouses. The decision, framed as a measure to protect American industries and promote domestic manufacturing, has sparked debates over its potential impact on the EV market, global supply chains, and bilateral relations between the United States and China.

The imposition of a 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs reflects the Biden administration's broader efforts to revitalize the American automotive industry and promote the transition to electric vehicles as part of its climate agenda and tighter EPA emissions rules that could accelerate adoption. By imposing tariffs on imported EVs, particularly those from China, the administration aims to incentivize domestic production and create jobs in the growing green economy, and to secure critical EV metals through allied supply efforts. Additionally, the tariff is seen as a response to concerns about unfair trade practices, including intellectual property theft and market distortions, allegedly perpetuated by Chinese companies.

However, the announcement has triggered a range of reactions from various stakeholders, with both proponents and critics offering contrasting perspectives on the potential consequences of such a policy. Proponents argue that the tariff will help level the playing field for American automakers, who face stiff competition from Chinese companies benefiting from government subsidies and lower production costs. They contend that promoting domestic manufacturing of EVs will not only create high-quality jobs but also enhance national security by reducing dependence on foreign supply chains at a time when an EV inflection point is approaching.

On the other hand, critics warn that the 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs could have unintended consequences, including higher prices for consumers, as seen in the UK EV prices and Brexit debate, disruptions to global supply chains, and retaliatory measures from China. Chinese EV manufacturers, such as NIO, BYD, and XPeng, have been gaining momentum in the global market, offering competitive products at relatively affordable prices. The tariff could limit consumer choice at a time when U.S. EV market share dipped in Q1 2024, potentially slowing the adoption of electric vehicles and undermining efforts to combat climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Moreover, the tariff announcement comes at a sensitive time for U.S.-China relations, which have been strained by various issues, including trade disputes, human rights concerns, and geopolitical tensions. The imposition of tariffs on Chinese-made EVs could further exacerbate bilateral tensions, potentially leading to retaliatory measures from China and escalating trade frictions. As the world's two largest economies, the United States and China have significant economic interdependencies, and any escalation in trade tensions could have far-reaching implications for global trade and economic stability.

In response to the Biden administration's announcement, Chinese officials have expressed concerns and called for dialogue to resolve trade disputes through negotiation and mutual cooperation. China has also emphasized its commitment to fair trade practices and compliance with international rules and regulations governing trade.

Moving forward, the Biden administration faces the challenge of balancing its domestic priorities with the need to maintain constructive engagement with China and other trading partners, even as EV charging networks scale under its electrification push. While promoting domestic manufacturing and protecting American industries are legitimate policy goals, achieving them without disrupting global trade and undermining diplomatic relations requires careful deliberation and strategic foresight.

In conclusion, President Biden's announcement of a 100% tariff on Chinese-made electric vehicles reflects his administration's commitment to revitalizing American industries and promoting domestic manufacturing. However, the decision has raised concerns about its potential impact on the EV market, global supply chains, and U.S.-China relations. As policymakers navigate these complexities, finding a balance between protecting domestic interests and fostering international cooperation will be crucial to achieving sustainable economic growth and addressing global challenges such as climate change.

 

Related News

View more

PG&E Rates Set to Stabilize in 2025

PG&E 2024 Rate Hikes signal sharp increases to fund wildfire safety, infrastructure upgrades, and CPUC-backed reliability, with rates expected to stabilize in 2025, affecting rural residents, businesses, and high-risk zones across California.

 

Key Points

PG&E’s 2024 hikes fund wildfire safety and grid upgrades, with pricing expected to stabilize in 2025.

✅ Driven by wildfire safety, infrastructure, and reinsurance costs

✅ Largest impacts in rural, high-risk zones; business rates vary

✅ CPUC oversight aims to ensure necessary, justified investments

 

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is expected to implement a series of rate hikes that, amid analyses of why California electricity prices are soaring across the state, will significantly impact California residents. These increases, while substantial, are anticipated to be followed by a period of stabilization in 2025, offering a sense of relief to customers facing rising costs.

PG&E, one of the largest utility providers in the state, announced that its 2024 rate hikes are part of efforts to address increasing operational costs, including those related to wildfire safety, infrastructure upgrades, and regulatory requirements. As California continues to face climate-related challenges like wildfires, utilities like PG&E are being forced to adjust their financial models to manage the evolving risks. Wildfire-related liabilities, which have plagued PG&E in recent years, play a significant role in these rate adjustments. In response to previous fire-related lawsuits, including a bankruptcy plan supported by wildfire victims that reshaped liabilities, and the increased cost of reinsurance, PG&E has made it clear that customers will bear part of the financial burden.

These rate hikes will have a multi-faceted impact. Residential users, particularly those in rural or high-risk wildfire zones, will see some of the largest increases. Business customers will also be affected, although the adjustments may vary depending on the size and energy consumption patterns of each business. PG&E has indicated that the increases are necessary to secure the utility’s financial stability while continuing to deliver reliable service to its customers.

Despite the steep increases in 2024, PG&E's executives have assured that the company's pricing structure will stabilize in 2025. The utility has taken steps to balance the financial needs of the business with the reality of consumer affordability. While some rate hikes are inevitable given California's regulatory landscape and climate concerns, PG&E's leadership believes the worst of the increases will be seen next year.

PG&E’s anticipated stabilization comes after a year of scrutiny from California regulators. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has been working closely with PG&E to scrutinize its rate request and ensure that hikes are justifiable and used for necessary investments in infrastructure and safety improvements. The CPUC’s oversight is especially crucial given the company’s history of safety violations and the public outrage over past wildfire incidents, including reports that its power lines may have sparked fires in California, which have been linked to PG&E’s equipment.

The hikes, though significant, reflect the broader pressures facing utilities in California, where extreme weather patterns are becoming more frequent and intense due to climate change. Wildfires, which have grown in severity and frequency in recent years, have forced PG&E to invest heavily in fire prevention and mitigation strategies, including compliance with a judge-ordered use of dividends for wildfire mitigation across its service area. This includes upgrading equipment, inspecting power lines, and implementing more rigorous protocols to prevent accidents that could spark devastating fires. These investments come at a steep cost, which PG&E is passing along to consumers through higher rates.

For homeowners and businesses, the potential for future rate stabilization offers a glimmer of hope. However, the 2024 increases are still expected to hit consumers hard, especially those already struggling with high living costs. The steep hikes have prompted public outcry, with calls for action as bills soar amplifying advocacy group arguments that utilities should absorb more of the costs related to climate change and fire prevention instead of relying on ratepayers.

Looking ahead to 2025, the expectation is that PG&E’s rates will stabilize, but the question remains whether they will return to pre-2024 levels or continue to rise at a slower rate. Experts note that California’s energy market remains volatile, and while the rates may stabilize in the short term, long-term cost management will depend on ongoing investments in renewable energy sources and continued efforts to make the grid more resilient to climate-related risks.

As PG&E navigates this challenging period, the company’s commitment to transparency and working with regulators will be crucial in rebuilding trust with its customers. While the immediate future may be financially painful for many, the hope is that the utility's focus on safety and infrastructure will lead to greater long-term stability and fewer dramatic rate increases in the years to come.

Ultimately, California residents will need to brace for another tough year in terms of utility costs but can find reassurance that PG&E’s rate increases will eventually stabilize. For those seeking relief, there are ongoing discussions about increasing energy efficiency, exploring renewable energy alternatives, and expanding assistance programs for lower-income households to help mitigate the financial strain of these price hikes.

 

Related News

View more

Canadian Electricity Grids Increasingly Exposed to Harsh Weather

North American Grid Reliability faces extreme weather, climate change, demand spikes, and renewable variability; utilities, AESO, and NERC stress resilience, dispatchable capacity, interconnections, and grid alerts to prevent blackouts during heatwaves and cold snaps.

 

Key Points

North American grid reliability is the ability to meet demand during extreme weather while maintaining stability.

✅ Extreme heat and cold drive record demand and resource strain.

✅ Balance dispatchable and intermittent generation for resilience.

✅ Expand interconnections, capacity, and demand response to avert outages.

 

The recent alerts in Alberta's electricity grid during extreme cold have highlighted a broader North American issue, where power systems are more susceptible to being overwhelmed by extreme weather impacts on reliability.

Electricity Canada's chief executive emphasized that no part of the grid is safe from the escalating intensity and frequency of weather extremes linked to climate change across the sector.

“In recent years, during these extreme weather events, we’ve observed record highs in electricity demand,” he stated.

“It’s a nationwide phenomenon. For instance, last summer in Ontario and last winter in Quebec, we experienced unprecedented demand levels. This pattern of extremes is becoming more pronounced across the country.”

The U.S. has also experienced strain on its electricity grids due to extreme weather, with more blackouts than peers documented in studies. Texas faced power outages in 2021 due to winter storms, and California has had to issue several emergency grid alerts during heat waves.

In Canada, Albertans received a government emergency alert two weeks ago, urging an immediate reduction in electricity use to prevent potential rotating blackouts as temperatures neared -40°C. No blackouts occurred, with a notable decrease in electricity use following the alert, according to the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO).

AESO's data indicates an increase in grid alerts in Alberta for both heatwaves and cold spells, reflecting dangerous vulnerabilities noted nationwide. The period between 2017 and 2020 saw only four alerts, in contrast to 17 since 2021.

Alberta's electricity grid reliability has sparked political debate, including proposals for a western Canadian grid to improve reliability, particularly with the transition from coal-fired plants to increased reliance on intermittent wind and solar power. Despite this debate, the AESO noted that the crisis eased when wind and solar generation resumed, despite challenges with two idled gas plants.

Bradley pointed out that Alberta's grid issues are not isolated. Every Canadian region is experiencing growing electricity demand, partly due to the surge in electric vehicles and clean energy technologies. No province has a complete solution yet.

“Ontario has had to request reduced consumption during heatwaves,” he noted. “Similar concerns about energy mix are present in British Columbia or Manitoba, especially now with drought affecting their hydro-dependent systems.”

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) released a report in November warning of elevated risks across North America this winter for insufficient energy supplies, particularly under extreme conditions like prolonged cold snaps.

While the U.S. is generally more susceptible to winter grid disruptions, and summer blackout warnings remain a concern, the report also highlights risks in parts of Canada. Saskatchewan faces a “high” risk due to increased demand, power plant retirements, and maintenance, whereas Quebec and the Maritimes are at “elevated risk.”

Mark Olson, NERC’s manager of reliability assessments, mentioned that Alberta wasn't initially considered at risk, illustrating the challenges in predicting electricity demand amid intensifying extreme weather.

Rob Thornton, president and CEO of the International District Energy Association, acknowledged public concerns about grid alerts but reassured that the risk of a catastrophic grid failure remains very low.

“The North American grid is exceptionally reliable. It’s a remarkably efficient system,” he said.

However, Thornton emphasized the importance of policies for a resilient and reliable electricity system through 2050 and beyond. This involves balancing dispatchable and intermittent electricity sources, investing in extra capacity, enhancing macrogrids and inter-jurisdictional connections, and more.

“These grid alerts raise awareness, if not anxiety, about our energy future,” Thornton concluded.

 

Related News

View more

California faces huge power cuts as wildfires rage

California Wildfire Power Shut-Offs escalate as PG&E imposes blackouts amid high winds, Getty and Kincade fires, mass evacuations, Sonoma County threats, and a state of emergency, drawing regulatory scrutiny over grid safety and outage scope.

 

Key Points

Planned utility outages to curb wildfire risk during extreme winds, prompting evacuations and regulatory scrutiny.

✅ PG&E preemptive blackouts under regulator inquiry

✅ Getty and Kincade fires drive mass evacuations

✅ Sonoma County under threat amid high winds

 

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) already faces an investigation by regulators after cutting supplies to 970,000 homes and businesses amid California blackouts that raised concerns.

It announced that another 650,000 properties would face precautionary shut-offs.

Wildfires fanned by the strong winds are raging in two parts of the state.

Thousands of residents near the wealthy Brentwood neighbourhood of Los Angeles have been told to evacuate because of a wildfire that began early on Monday.

Further north in Sonoma County, a larger fire has forced 180,000 people from their homes.

California's governor has declared a state-wide emergency.

 

What about the power cuts?

On Monday regulators announced a formal inquiry into whether energy utilities broke rules by pre-emptively cutting power to an estimated 2.5 million people, amid a blackouts policy debate that intensified, as wildfire risks soared.

They did not name any utilities but analysts said PG&E was responsible for the bulk of the "public safety power shut-offs", and later faced a Camp Fire guilty plea that underscored its liabilities.

The company filed for bankruptcy in January after facing hundreds of lawsuits from victims of wildfires in 2017 and 2018.

Of the 970,000 properties hit by the most recent cuts, under half had their services back by Monday, and some sought help through wildfire assistance programs, the Associated Press reported.

Despite criticism that the precautionary blackouts were too widespread and too disruptive, PG&E said more would come on Tuesday and Wednesday because further strong winds were expected.

The company said it had logged more than 20 preliminary reports of damage to its network from the most recent windstorm.

In a video posted to Twitter on Saturday, Governor Gavin Newsom said the power cuts were "infuriating everyone, and rightfully so".

 

Where are the fires now?

In Los Angeles, the Getty Fire has burned over 600 acres (242 ha) and about 10,000 buildings are in the mandatory evacuation zone.

At least eight homes have been destroyed and five others damaged.

"If you are in an evacuation zone, don't screw around," Mr Schwarzenegger tweeted. "Get out."

LA fire chief Ralph Terrazas said fire crews had been "overwhelmed" by the scale of the fires.

"They had to make some tough decisions on which houses they were able to protect," he said.

"Many times it depends on where the ember lands. I saw homes that were adjacent to homes that were totally destroyed, without any damage."

In northern California, schools remain closed in Sonoma County, where tens of thousands of homes and businesses are under threat.

Sonoma has been ravaged by the Kincade Fire, which started on Wednesday and has burned through 50,000 acres of land, fanned by the winds.

The Kincade Fire began seven minutes after a nearby power line was damaged, and power lines may have started fires according to reports, but PG&E has not yet confirmed if the power glitch started the blaze.

About 180,000 people have been ordered to evacuate, with roads around Santa Rosa north of San Francisco packed with cars as people tried to flee.

There are fears the flames could cross the 101 highway and enter areas that have not seen wildfires since the 1940s.

 

Related News

View more

Blizzard and Extreme Cold Hit Calgary and Alberta

Calgary Winter Storm and Extreme Cold delivers heavy snowfall, ECCC warnings, blowing snow, icy roads, and dangerous wind chill across southern Alberta, as a low-pressure system and northerly inflow fuel hazardous travel and frostbite risks.

 

Key Points

A severe Alberta storm with heavy snow, strong winds, ECCC warnings, dangerous wind chill, and high frostbite risk.

✅ ECCC extends snowfall and winter storm warnings regionwide.

✅ Wind chill -28 to -47; frostbite possible within 5-30 minutes.

✅ AMA rescues surge; non-essential travel strongly discouraged.

 

Calgary and much of southern Alberta faced a significant winter storm that brought heavy snowfall, strong winds, and dangerously low temperatures. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) issued extended and expanded snowfall and winter storm warnings as persistent precipitation streamed along the southern borders. The combination of a low-pressure system off the West Coast, where a B.C. 'bomb cyclone' had left tens of thousands without power, and a northerly inflow at the surface led to significant snow accumulations in a short period.

The storm resulted in poor driving conditions across much of southern Alberta, with snow-packed and icy roads, as well as limited visibility due to blowing snow. ECCC advised postponing non-essential travel until conditions improved. As of 10 a.m. on January 17, the 511 Alberta map showed poor driving conditions throughout the region, while B.C. electricity demand hit an all-time high amid the cold.

In Calgary, the city recorded four centimeters of snow on January 16, with an additional four centimeters expected on January 17. Temperatures remained far below seasonal averages until the end of the week, and Calgary electricity use tends to surge during such cold snaps according to Enmax, with improvements starting on Sunday.

The extreme cold posed significant risks, with wind chills of -28 to -39 capable of causing frostbite in 10 to 30 minutes, as a Quebec power demand record illustrated during the deep freeze. When wind chills dropped to -40 to -47, frostbite could occur in as little as five to 10 minutes. Residents were advised to watch for signs of frostbite, including color changes on fingers and toes, pain, numbness, tingling sensations, or swelling. Those most at risk included young children, older adults, people with chronic illnesses, individuals working or exercising outdoors, and those without proper shelter.

In response to the severe weather, the Alberta Motor Association (AMA) experienced a surge in calls for roadside assistance. Between January 12 and 14, there were approximately 32,000 calls, with about 22,000 of those requiring rescues between January 12 and 14. The high volume of requests led the AMA to temporarily cease providing wait time updates on their website due to the inability to provide accurate information, while debates over Alberta electricity prices also intensified during the cold.

The storm also had broader implications across Canada. Heavy snow was expected to fall across wide swaths of southern British Columbia and parts of southern Alberta, as BC Hydro's winter payment plan offered billing relief to customers during the stretch. Northern Alberta was under extreme cold warnings, with temperatures expected to dip to -40°C through the rest of the week. Similar extreme cold was forecast for southern Ontario, with wind chill values reaching -30°C.

As the storm progressed, conditions began to improve. The wind warning for central Alberta ended by January 17, though a blowing snow advisory remained in effect for the southeast corner of the province. Northwest winds gusting up to 90 km/h combined with falling snow continued to cause poor visibility in some areas, while California power outages and landslides were reported amid concurrent severe storms along the coast. Conditions were expected to improve by mid-morning.

In the aftermath of the storm, residents were reminded of the importance of preparedness and caution during severe winter weather. Staying informed through official weather advisories, adjusting travel plans, and taking necessary precautions can help mitigate the risks associated with such extreme conditions.

 

Related News

View more

Sign Up for Electricity Forum’s Newsletter

Stay informed with our FREE Newsletter — get the latest news, breakthrough technologies, and expert insights, delivered straight to your inbox.

Electricity Today T&D Magazine Subscribe for FREE

Stay informed with the latest T&D policies and technologies.
  • Timely insights from industry experts
  • Practical solutions T&D engineers
  • Free access to every issue

Download the 2025 Electrical Training Catalog

Explore 50+ live, expert-led electrical training courses –

  • Interactive
  • Flexible
  • CEU-cerified