Public can weigh in on proposed Botetourt power line routes

Clean Power Plan Rollback signals EPA's shift to inside-the-fence efficiency at coal plants, emphasizing heat-rate improvements over sector-wide decarbonization, renewables, natural gas switching, demand-side efficiency, and carbon capture under Clean Air Act constraints.

Key Points

A policy shift by the EPA to replace broad emissions rules with plant-level efficiency standards, limiting CO2 cuts.

✅ Inside-the-fence heat-rate improvements at coal units

✅ Potential CO2 cuts limited to about 6% per plant

✅ Alternatives: fuel switching, renewables, carbon capture

President Barack Obama’s signature plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electrical generation took years to develop and touched every aspect of power production and use, from smokestacks to home insulation.

The Trump administration is moving to scrap that plan and has signaled that any alternative it might adopt would take a much less expansive approach, possibly just telling utilities to operate their plants more efficiently.

That’s a strategy environmentalists say is almost certain to fall short of what’s needed.

The Trump administration is making "a wholesale retreat from EPA’s legal, scientific and moral obligation to address the threats of climate change," said former Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy, the architect of Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

President Donald Trump promised to rip up the initiative, echoing an end to the 'war on coal' message from his campaign, which mandated that states change their overall power mix, displacing coal-fired electricity with that from wind, solar and natural gas. The EPA is about to make it official, arguing the prior administration violated the Clean Air Act by requiring those broad changes to the electricity sector, according to a draft obtained by Bloomberg.

Possible Replacements

Later, the agency will also ask the public to weigh in on possible replacements. The administration will ask whether the EPA can or should develop a replacement rule -- and, if so, what actions can be mandated at individual power plants, though some policymakers favor a clean electricity standard to drive broader decarbonization.

Follow the Trump Administration’s Every Move

Such changes -- such as adding automation or replacing worn turbine seals -- would yield at most a 6 percent gain in efficiency, along with a corresponding fall in greenhouse gas emissions, according to earlier modeling by the Environmental Protection Agency and other analysts. That compares to the 32 percent drop in emissions by 2030 under Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

"In these existing plants, there’s only so many places to look for savings," said John Larsen, a director of the Rhodium Group, a research firm. "There’s only so many opportunities within a big spinning machine like that."

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt outlined such an "inside-the-fence-line" approach in 2014, later embodied in the Affordable Clean Energy rule that industry groups backed, when he served as Oklahoma’s attorney general. Under his blueprint, states would set emissions standards after a detailed unit-by-unit analysis, looking at what reductions are possible given "the engineering limits of each facility."

The EPA has not decided whether it will promulgate a new rule at all, though it has also proposed new pollution limits for coal and gas plants in separate actions. In a forthcoming advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA will ask "what inside-the-fence-line options are legal, feasible and appropriate," according to a document obtained by Bloomberg.

Increased efficiency at a coal plant -- known as heat-rate improvement -- translates into fewer carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of electric power generated.

Under Obama, the EPA envisioned utilities would make some straightforward efficiency improvements at coal-fired power plants as the first step to comply with the Clean Power Plan. But that was expected to coincide with bigger, broader changes -- such as using more cleaner-burning natural gas, adding more renewable power projects and simply encouraging customers to do a better job turning down their thermostats and turning off their lights.

Obama’s EPA didn’t ask utilities to wring every ounce of efficiency they could out of coal-fired power plants because they saw the other options as cheaper. A plant-specific approach "would be grossly insufficient to address the public health and environmental impacts from CO2 emissions," Obama’s EPA said.

That approach might yield modest emissions reductions and, in a perverse twist, might event have the opposite effect. If utilities make coal plants more efficient -- thereby driving down operating costs -- they also make them more competitive with natural gas and renewables, "so they might run more and pollute more," said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director for the Clean Air Task Force.  

In a competitive market, any improvement in emissions produced for each unit of energy could be overwhelmed by an increase in electrical output, and debates over changes to electricity pricing under Trump and Perry added further uncertainty.

"A very minor heat rate improvement program would very likely result in increased emissions," Schneider said. "It might be worse than nothing."

Power companies want to get as much electricity as possible from every pound of coal, so they already have an incentive to keep efficiency high, said Jeff Holmstead, a former assistant EPA administrator now at Bracewell LLP. But an EPA regulation known as “new source review” has discouraged some from making those changes, for fear of triggering other pollution-control requirements, he said.

"If EPA’s replacement rule allows companies to improve efficiency without triggering new source review, it would make a real difference in terms of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions," Holmstead said.

Modest Impact

A plant-specific approach doesn’t have to mean modest impact.

"If you’re thinking about what can be done at the power plants by themselves, you don’t stop at efficiency tune-ups," said David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate and clean air program. "You look at things like switching to natural gas or installing carbon capture and storage."

Requirements that facilities use carbon capture technology or swap in natural gas for coal could actually come close to hitting the same goals as in Obama’s Clean Power Plan -- if not go even further, Schneider said. They just would cost more.

The benefit of the Clean Power Plan "is that it enabled states to create programs and enabled companies to find a reduction strategy that was the most efficient and made the most sense for their own content," said Kathryn Zyla, deputy director of the Georgetown Climate Center. "And that flexibility was really important for the states and companies."

Some utilities, including Houston-based Calpine Corp., PG&E Corp. and Dominion Resources Inc., backed the Obama-era approach. And they are still pushing the Trump administration to be creative now.

"The Clean Power Plan achieved a thoughtful, balanced approach that gave companies and states considerable flexibility on how best to pursue that goal," said Melissa Lavinson, vice president of federal affairs and policy for PG&E’s Pacific Gas and Electric utility. “We look forward to working with the administration to devise an alternative plan for decarbonizing the U.S. economy."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario-Quebec Energy Swap streamlines electricity exchange, balancing peak demand across clean grids with hydroelectric and nuclear power, enhancing reliability, capacity banking, and interprovincial load management for industry growth, EV adoption, and seasonal heating-cooling needs.

Key Points

10-year, no-cash power swap aligning peaks; hydro and nuclear enhance reliability and let Ontario bank capacity.

✅ Up to 600 MW exchanged yearly; reviews adjust volumes

✅ Peaks differ: summer A/C in Ontario, winter heating in Quebec

✅ Capacity banking enables future-year withdrawals

Ontario and Quebec have agreed to swap energy to build on an electricity deal to help each other out when electricity demands peak.

The provinces' electricity operators, the Independent Electricity System Operator holds capacity auctions and Hydro-Quebec, will trade up to 600 megawatts of energy each year, said Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith.

“The deal just makes a lot of sense from both sides,” Smith said in an interview.

“The beauty as well is that Quebec and Ontario are amongst the cleanest grids around.”

The majority of Ontario's power comes from nuclear energy while the majority of Quebec's energy comes from hydroelectric power, including Labrador power in regional transmission networks.

The deal works because Ontario and Quebec's energy peaks come at different times, Smith said.

Ontario's energy demands spike in the summer, largely driven by air conditioning on hot days, and the province has occasionally set off-peak electricity prices to provide temporary relief, he said.

Quebec's energy needs peak in the winter, mostly due to electric heating on cold days.

The deal will last 10 years, with reviews along the way to adjust energy amounts based on usage.

“With the increase in energy demand, we must adopt more energy efficiency programs like Peak Perks and intelligent measures in order to better manage peak electricity consumption,” Quebec's Energy Minister Pierre Fitzgibbon wrote in a statement.

Smith said the energy deal is a straight swap, with no payments on either side, and won't reduce hydro bills as the transfer could begin as early as this winter.

Ontario will also be able to bank unused energy to save capacity until it is needed in future years, Smith said.

Both provinces are preparing for future energy needs, as electricity demands are expected to grow dramatically in the coming years with increased demand from industry and the rise of electric vehicles, and Ontario has tabled legislation to lower electricity rates to support consumers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Texas Heat Pump Electrification replaces natural gas furnaces with electric heating across ERCOT, cutting carbon emissions, lowering utility bills, shifting summer peaks to winter, and aligning higher loads with strong seasonal wind power generation.

Key Points

Statewide shift from gas furnaces to heat pumps in Texas, reducing emissions and bills while moving grid peak to winter.

✅ Up to $452 annual utility savings per household

✅ CO2 cuts up to 13.8 million metric tons in scenarios

✅ Winter peak rises, summer peak falls; wind aligns with load

What would happen if you converted all the single-family homes in Texas from natural gas to electric heating?

According to a paper from Pecan Street, an Austin-based energy research organization, the transition would reduce climate-warming pollution, save Texas households up to $452 annually on their utility bills, and flip the state from a summer-peaking to a winter-peaking system. And that winter peak would be “nothing the grid couldn’t evolve to handle,” according to co-author Joshua Rhodes, a view echoed by analyses outlining Texas grid reliability improvements statewide today.

The report stems from the reality that buildings must be part of any comprehensive climate action plan.

“If we do want to decarbonize, eventually we do have to move into that space. It may not be the lowest-hanging fruit, but eventually we will have to get there,” said Rhodes.

Rhodes is a founding partner of the consultancy IdeaSmiths and an analyst at Vibrant Clean Energy. Pecan Street commissioned the study, which is distilled from a larger original analysis by IdeaSmiths, at the request of the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund.

In an interview, Rhodes said, “The goal and motivation were to put bounding on some of the claims that have been made about electrification: that if we electrify a lot of different end uses or sectors of the economy...power demand of the grid would double.”

Rhodes and co-author Philip R. White used an analysis tool from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory called ResStock to determine the impact of replacing natural-gas furnaces with electric heat pumps in homes across the ERCOT service territory, which encompasses 90 percent of Texas’ electricity load.

Rhodes and White ran 80,000 simulations in order to determine how heat pumps would perform in Texas homes and how the pumps would impact the ERCOT grid.

The researchers modeled the use of “standard efficiency” (ducted, SEER 14, 8.2 HSPF air-source heat pump) and “superior efficiency” (ductless, SEER 29.3, 14 HSPF mini-split heat pump) heat pump models against two weather data sets — a typical meteorological year, and 2011, which had extreme weather in both the winter and summer and highlighted blackout risks during severe heat for many regions.

Emissions were calculated using Texas’ power sector data from 2017. For energy cost calculations, IdeaSmiths used 10.93 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity and 8.4 cents per therm for natural gas.

Nothing the grid can't handle
Rhodes and White modeled six scenarios. All the scenarios resulted in annual household utility bill savings — including the two in which annual electricity demand increased — ranging from $57.82 for the standard efficiency heat pump and typical meteorological year to $451.90 for the high-efficiency heat pump and 2011 extreme weather year.

“For the average home, it was cheaper to switch. It made economic sense today to switch to a relatively high-efficiency heat pump,” said Rhodes. “Electricity bills would go up, but gas bills can go down.”

All the scenarios found carbon savings too, with CO2 reductions ranging from 2.6 million metric tons with a standard efficiency heat pump and typical meteorological year to 13.8 million metric tons with the high-efficiency heat pump in 2011-year weather.

Peak electricity demand in Texas would shift from summer to winter. Because heat pumps provide both high-efficiency space heating and cooling, in the scenario with “superior efficiency” heat pumps, the summer peak drops by nearly 24 percent to 54 gigawatts compared to ERCOT’s 71-gigawatt 2016 summer peak, even as recurring strains on the Texas power grid during extreme conditions persist.

The winter peak would increase compared to ERCOT’s 66-gigawatt 2018 winter peak, up by 22.73 percent to 81 gigawatts with standard efficiency heat pumps and up by 10.6 percent to 73 gigawatts with high-efficiency heat pumps.

“The grid could evolve to handle this. This is not a wholesale rethinking of how the grid would have to operate,” said Rhodes.

He added, “There would be some operational changes if we went to a winter-peaking grid. There would be implications for when power plants and transmission lines schedule their downtime for maintenance. But this is not beyond the realm of reality.”

And because Texas’ wind power generation is higher in winter, a winter peak would better match the expected higher load from all-electric heating to the availability of zero-carbon electricity.

A conservative estimate
The study presented what are likely conservative estimates of the potential for heat pumps to reduce carbon pollution and lower peak electricity demand, especially when paired with efficiency and demand response strategies that can flatten demand.

Electric heat pumps will become cleaner as more zero-carbon wind and solar power are added to the ERCOT grid, as utilities such as Tucson Electric Power phase out coal. By the end of 2018, 30 percent of the energy used on the ERCOT grid was from carbon-free sources.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, three in five Texas households already use electricity as their primary source of heat, much of it electric-resistance heating. Rhodes and White did not model the energy use and peak demand impacts of replacing that electric-resistance heating with much more energy efficient heat pumps.

“Most of the electric-resistance heating in Texas is located in the very far south, where they don’t have much heating at all,” Rhodes said. “You would see savings in terms of the bills there because these heat pumps definitely operate more efficiently than electric-resistance heating for most of the time.”

Rhodes and White also highlighted areas for future research. For one, their study did not factor in the upfront cost to homeowners of installing heat pumps.

“More study is needed,” they write in the Pecan Street paper, “to determine the feasibility of various ‘replacement’ scenarios and how and to what degree the upgrade costs would be shared by others.”

Research from the Rocky Mountain Institute has found that electrification of both space and water heating is cheaper for homeowners over the life of the appliances in most new construction, when transitioning from propane or heating oil, when a gas furnace and air conditioner are replaced at the same time, and when rooftop solar is coupled with electrification, aligning with broader utility trends toward electrification.

More work is also needed to assess the best way to jump-start the market for high-efficiency all-electric heating. Rhodes believes getting installers on board is key.

“Whenever a homeowner’s making a decision, if their system goes out, they lean heavily on what the HVAC company suggests or tells them because the average homeowner doesn’t know much about their systems,” he said.

More work is also needed to assess the best way to jump-start the market for high-efficiency all-electric heating, and how utility strategies such as smart home network programs affect adoption too. Rhodes believes getting installers on board is key.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

FPL Rate Increase Proposal 2026-2029 outlines $9B base-rate hikes as Florida grows, citing residential demand, grid infrastructure investments, energy mix diversification, and Florida PSC review impacting customer bills, reliability, and fuel price volatility mitigation.

Key Points

A $9B base-rate plan FPL filed with the Florida PSC to fund growth, grid upgrades, and energy diversification through 2029.

✅ Adds 275k since 2021; +335k customers projected by 2029.

✅ Monthly bills rise to about $157 by 2029, up ~22% total.

✅ Investments in poles, wires, transformers, substations, renewables.

Florida Power & Light (FPL), the state's largest utility provider, has submitted a proposal to the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) seeking a substantial increase in customer base rates over the next four years, amid ongoing scrutiny, including a recent hurricane surcharge controversy that heightened public attention.

Rationale Behind the Rate Increase

FPL's request is primarily influenced by Florida's robust population growth. Since 2021, the utility has added about 275,000 customers and projects an additional 335,000 by the end of 2029. This surge necessitates significant investments in transmission and distribution infrastructure, including poles, wires, transformers, and substations, to maintain reliable service. Moreover, FPL aims to diversify its energy mix to shield customers from fuel price volatility, even as the state declined federal solar incentives that could influence renewable adoption, ensuring a stable and sustainable power supply.

Impact on Customer Bills

If approved, the proposed rate increases would affect residential customers as follows:

• 2026: An estimated increase of $11.52 per month, raising the typical bill to $145.66.

• 2027: An additional $6.05 per month, bringing the bill to $151.71.

• 2028: A further increase of $3.64 per month, totaling $155.35.

• 2029: An extra $2.06 per month, resulting in a final bill of $157.41.

These adjustments represent a cumulative increase of approximately 22% over the four-year period, while in other regions some customers face sharper spikes, such as Pennsylvania's winter price increases this season.

Comparison with Previous Rate Hikes

This proposal follows a series of rate increases approved in recent years, as California electricity bills have soared and prompted calls for action in that state. For instance, Tampa Electric Co. (TECO) received approval for rate hikes totaling $287.9 million in 2025, with additional increases planned for 2026 and 2027. Consumer groups have expressed intentions to challenge these rate hikes, indicating a trend of growing scrutiny over utility rate adjustments.

Regulatory Review Process

The PSC is scheduled to review FPL's rate increase proposal in the coming months. A staff recommendation is expected by March 14, 2025, with a final decision anticipated at a commission conference on March 20, 2025. This process allows for public input and thorough evaluation of the proposed rate changes, while elsewhere some utilities anticipate stabilization, such as PG&E's 2025 outlook in California.

Customer and Consumer Advocacy Responses

The proposed rate hikes have elicited concerns from consumer advocacy groups. Organizations like Food & Water Watch have criticized the scale of the increase, labeling it as the largest rate hike request in U.S. history, amid mixed signals such as Gulf Power's one-time 40% bill decrease earlier this year. They argue that such substantial increases could place undue financial strain on households, especially those with fixed incomes.

Additionally, the Florida Public Service Commission has faced challenges in approving rate hikes for other utilities, such as TECO, and a recent Florida court decision on electricity monopolies that may influence the policy landscape, with consumer groups planning to appeal these decisions. This backdrop of heightened scrutiny suggests that FPL's proposal will undergo rigorous examination.

As Florida continues to experience rapid growth, balancing the need for infrastructure development and reliable energy services with the financial impact on consumers remains a critical challenge. The PSC's forthcoming decisions will play a pivotal role in shaping the state's energy landscape, influencing both the economy and the daily lives of Floridians.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One-Avista Merger outlines a utility acquisition shaped by Washington regulators, Colstrip coal plant depreciation, and plans for renewables, clean energy, and emissions cuts, while Montana reviews implications for jobs, ratepayers, and a 2027 closure.

Key Points

A utility deal setting Colstrip depreciation and renewables, without committing to an early coal plant closure.

✅ Washington sets 2027 depreciation for Colstrip units

✅ Montana reviews jobs, ratepayer impacts, community fund

✅ Avista seeks renewables; no binding shutdown commitment

The Washington power company Hydro One is buying will be ready to close its huge coal-fired generating station ahead of schedule, thanks to conditions put on the corporate merger by state regulators there.

Not that we actually plan to do that, the company is telling other regulators in Montana, where coal unit retirements are under debate, the huge coal-fired generating station in question employs hundreds of people. We’ll be in the coal business for a good long time yet.

Hydro One, in which the Ontario government now owns a big minority stake, is still working on its purchase of Avista, a private power utility based in Spokane. The $6.7-billion deal, which Hydro One announced in July, includes a 15 per cent share in two of the four generating units in a coal plant in Colstrip, Montana, one of the biggest in the western United States. Avista gets most of its electricity from hydro dams and gas but uses the Colstrip plant when demand for power is high and water levels at its dams are low.

#google#

Colstrip’s a town of fewer than 2,500 people whose industries are the power plant and the open-pit mines that feed it about 10 million tonnes of coal a year. Two of Colstrip’s generators, older ones Avista doesn’t have any stake in, are closing in 2022. The other two will be all that keep the town in business.

In Washington, they don’t like the coal plant and its pollution. In Montana, the future of Colstrip is a much bigger concern. The companies have to satisfy regulators in both places that letting Hydro One buy Avista is in the public interest.

Ontario proudly closed the last of our coal plants in 2014 and outlawed new ones as environmental menaces, and Alberta's coal phase-out is now slated to finish by 2023. When Hydro One said it was buying Avista, which makes about $100 million in profit a year, Premier Kathleen Wynne said she hoped Ontario’s “value system” would spread to Avista’s operations.

The settlement is “an important step towards bringing together two historic companies,” Hydro One’s chief executive Mayo Schmidt said in announcing it.

The deal has approval from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission staff but is subject to a vote by the group’s three commissioners. It doesn’t commit Avista to closing anything at Colstrip or selling its share. But Avista and Hydro One will budget as if the Colstrip coal burners will close in 2027, instead of running into the 2040s as their owners had once planned, a timeline that echoes debates over the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico.

In accounting terms, they’ll depreciate the value of their share of the plant to zero over the next nine years, reflecting what they say is the end of the plant’s “useful life.” Another of Colstrip’s owners, Puget Sound Energy, has previously agreed with Washington regulators that it’ll budget for a Colstrip closure in 2027 as well.

Avista and Hydro One will look for sources of 50 megawatts of renewable electricity, including independent power projects where feasible, in the next four years and another 90 megawatts to supplement Avista’s supply once the Colstrip plant eventually closes, they promise in Washington. They’ll put $3 million into a “community transition fund” for Colstrip.

The money will come from the companies’ profits and cash, the agreement says. “Hydro One will not seek cost recovery for such funds from ratepayers in Ontario,” it says specifically.

“Ontario has always been a global leader in the transition away from dirty coal power and towards clean energy,” said Doug Howell, an anti-coal campaigner with the Sierra Club, which is a party to the agreement. “This settlement continues that tradition, paving the way for the closure of the largest single source of climate pollution in the American West by 2027, if not earlier.”

Montanans aren’t as thrilled. That state has its own public services commission, doing its own examination of the corporate merger, which has asked Hydro One and Avista to explain in detail why they want to write off the value of the Colstrip burners early. The City of Colstrip has filed a petition saying it wants in on Montana hearings because “the potential closure of (Avista’s units) would be devastating to our community.”

Don’t get too worked up, an Avista vice-president urged the Montana commission just before Easter.

“Just because an asset is depreciated does not mean that one would otherwise remove that asset from service if the asset is still performing as intended,” Jason Thackston testified in a session that dealt only with what the deal with Washington state would mean to Colstrip. We’re talking strictly about an accounting manoeuvre, not an operational commitment.

Six joint owners will have to agree to close the Colstrip generators and there’s “no other tacit understanding or unstated agreement” to do that, he said.

Besides Washington and Montana, state regulators in Idaho, including those overseeing the Idaho Power settlement process, Alaska and Oregon and multiple federal authorities have to sign off on the deal before it can happen. Hydro One hopes it’ll be done in the second half of this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News