Canadians Support Tariffs on Energy and Minerals in U.S. Trade Dispute

Hydro-Quebec NECEC Transmission Line faces Maine PUC scrutiny over clean energy claims, greenhouse gas emissions, spillage capacity, resource shuffling, and Massachusetts contracts, amid opposition from natural gas generators and environmental groups debating public need.

Key Points

A $1B Maine corridor for Quebec hydropower to Massachusetts, debated over emissions, spillage, and public need.

✅ Maine PUC weighing public need and ratepayer benefits

✅ Emissions impact disputed: resource shuffling vs new supply

✅ Hydro-Quebec spillage claims questioned without data

As Maine regulators are deciding whether to approve construction of a $1 billion electricity corridor across much of western Maine, the Canadian hydroelectric utility poised to make billions of dollars from the project has been absent from the process.

This has left both opponents and supporters of the line arguing about how much available energy the utility has to send through a completed line, and whether that energy will help fulfill the mission of the project: fighting climate change.

And while the utility has avoided making its case before regulators, which requires submitting to cross-examination and discovery, it has engaged in a public relations campaign to try and win support from the region's newspapers.

Government-owned Hydro-Quebec controls dams and reservoirs generating hydroelectricity throughout its namesake province. It recently signed agreements to sell electricity across the proposed line, named the New England Clean Energy Connect, to Massachusetts as part of the state's effort to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, including natural gas.

At the Maine Public Utilities Commission, attorneys for Central Maine Power Co., which would build and maintain the line, have been sparring with the opposition over the line's potential impact on Maine and its electricity consumers. Leading the opposition is a coalition of natural gas electricity generators that stand to lose business should the line be built, as well as the Natural Resources Council of Maine, an environmental group.

That unusual alliance of environmental and business groups wants Hydro-Quebec to answer questions about its hydroelectric system, which they argue can't deliver the amount of electricity promised to Massachusetts without diverting energy from other regions.

In that scenario, critics say the line would not produce the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that CMP and Hydro-Quebec have made a central part of their pitch for the project. Instead, other markets currently buying energy from Hydro-Quebec, such as New York, Ontario and New Brunswick, would see hydroelectricity imports decrease and have to rely on other sources of energy, including coal or oil, to make up the difference. If that happened, the total amount of clean energy in the world would remain the same.

Opponents call this possibility "greenwashing." Massachusetts regulators have described these circumstances as "resource shuffling."

But CMP spokesperson John Carroll said that if hydropower was diverted from nearby markets to power Massachusetts, those markets would not turn to fossil fuels. Rather they would seek to develop other forms of renewable energy "leading to further reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the region."

Hydro-Quebec said it has plenty of capacity to increase its electricity exports to Massachusetts without diverting energy from other places.

However, Hydro-Quebec is not required to participate -- and has not voluntarily participated -- in regulatory hearings where it would be subject to cross examinations and have to testify under oath. Some participants wish it would.

At a January hearing at the Maine Public Utilities Commission, hearing examiner Mitchell Tannenbaum had to warn experts giving testimony to "refrain from commentary regarding whether Hydro-Quebec is here or not" after they complained about its absence when trying to predict potential ramifications of the line.

"I would have hoped they would have been visible and available to answer legitimate questions in all of these states through which their power is going to be flowing," said Dot Kelly, a member of the executive committee at the Maine Chapter of the Sierra Club who has participated in the line's regulatory proceedings as an individual. "If you're going to have a full and fair process, they have to be there."

[What you need to know about the CMP transmission line proposed for Maine]

While Hydro-Quebec has not presented data on its system directly to Maine regulators, it has brought its case to the press. Central to that case is the fact that it's "spilling" water from its reservoirs because it is limited by how much electricity it can export. It said that it could send more water through its turbines and lower reservoir levels, eliminating spillage and creating more energy, if only it had a way to get that energy to market. Hydro-Quebec said the line would make that possible, and, in doing so, help lower emissions and fight climate change.

"We have that excess potential that we need to use. Essentially, it's a good problem to have so long as you can find an export market," Hydro-Quebec spokesperson Serge Abergel told the Bangor Daily News.

Hydro-Quebec made its "spillage" case to the editorial boards of The Boston Globe, The Portland Press Herald and the BDN, winning qualified endorsements from the Globe and Press Herald. (The BDN editorial board has not weighed in on the project).

Opponents have questioned why Hydro-Quebec is willing to present their case to the press but not regulators.

"We need a better answer than 'just trust us,'" Natural Resources Council of Maine attorney Sue Ely said. "What's clear is that CMP and HQ are engaging in a full-court publicity tour peddling false transparency in an attempt to sell their claims of greenhouse gas benefits."

Energy generators aren't typically parties to public utility commission proceedings involving the building of transmission lines, but Maine regulators don't typically evaluate projects that will help customers in another state buy energy generated in a foreign country.

"It's a unique case," said Maine Public Advocate and former Democratic Senate Minority Leader Barry Hobbins, who has neither endorsed nor opposed the project. Hobbins noted the project was not proposed to improve reliability for Maine electricity customers, which is typically the point of new transmission line proposals evaluated by the commission. Instead, the project "is a straight shot to Massachusetts," Hobbins said.

Maine Public Utilities Commission spokesperson Harry Lanphear agreed. "The Commission has never considered this type of project before," he said in an email.

In order to proceed with the project, CMP must convince the Maine Public Utilities Commission that the proposed line would fill a "public need" and benefit Mainers. Among other benefits, CMP said it will help lower electricity costs and create jobs in Maine. A decision is expected in the spring.

Given the uniqueness of the case, even the commission seems unsure about how to apply the vague "public need" standard. On Jan. 14, commission staff asked case participants to weigh in on how it should apply Maine law when evaluating the project, including whether the hydroelectricity that would travel over the line should be considered "renewable" and whether Maine's own carbon reduction goals are relevant to the case.

James Speyer, an energy consultant whose firm was hired by natural gas company and project opponent Calpine to analyze the market impacts of the line, said he has testified before roughly 20 state public utility commissions and has never seen a proceeding like this one.

"I've never been in a case where one of the major beneficiaries of the PUC decision is not in the case, never has filed a report, has never had to provide any data to support its assertions, and never has been subject to cross examination," Speyer said. "Hydro-Quebec is like a black box."

Hydro-Quebec would gladly appear before the Maine Public Utilities Commission, but it has not been invited, said spokesperson Abergel.

"The PUC is doing its own process," Abergel said. "If the PUC were to invite us, we'd gladly intervene. We're very willing to collaborate in that sense."

But that's not how the commission process works. Individuals and organizations can intervene in cases, but the commission does not invite them to the proceedings, commission spokesperson Lanphear said.

CMP spokesperson Carroll dismissed concerns over emissions, noting that Hydro-Quebec is near the end of completing a more than 15-year effort to develop its clean energy resources. "They will have capacity to satisfy the contract with Massachusetts in their reservoirs," Carroll said.

While Maine regulators are evaluating the transmission line, Massachusetts' Department of Public Utilities is deciding whether to approve 20-year contracts between Hydro-Quebec and that state's electric utilities. Those contracts, which Hydro-Quebec has estimated could be worth close to $8 billion, govern how the utility sells electricity over the line.

Dean Murphy, a consultant hired by the Massachusetts Attorney General's office to review the contracts, testified before Massachusetts regulators that the agreements do not require a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. Murphy also warned the contracts don't actually require Hydro-Quebec to increase the total amount of energy it sends to New England, as energy could be shuffled from established lines to the proposed CMP line to satisfy the contracts.

Parties in the Massachusetts proceeding are also trying to get more information from Hydro-Quebec. Energy giant NextEra is currently trying to convince Massachusetts regulators to issue a subpoena to force Hydro-Quebec to answer questions about how its exports might change with the construction of the transmission line. Hydro-Quebec and CMP have opposed the motion.

Hydro-Quebec has a reputation for guarding its privacy, according to Hobbins.

"It would have been easier to not have to play Sherlock Holmes and try to guess or try to calculate without having a direct 'yes' or 'no' response from the entity itself," Hobbins said.

Ultimately, the burden of proving that Maine needs the line falls on CMP, which is also responsible for making sure regulators have all the information they need to make a decision on the project, said former Maine Public Utilities Commission Chairman Kurt Adams.

"Central Maine Power should provide the PUC with all the info that it needs," Adams said. "If CMP can't, then one might argue that they haven't met their burden."

'They treat HQ with nothing but distrust'

If completed, the line would bring 9.45 terawatt hours of electricity from Quebec to Massachusetts annually, or about a sixth of the total amount of electricity Massachusetts currently uses every year (and roughly 80 percent of Maine's annual load). CMP's parent company Avangrid would make an estimated $60 million a year from the line, according to financial analysts.

As part of its legally mandated efforts to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change, Massachusetts would pay the $950 million cost of constructing the line. The state currently relies on natural gas, a fossil fuel, for nearly 70 percent of its electricity, a figure that helps explain natural gas companies' opposition to the project.

A panel of experts recently warned that humanity has 12 years to keep global temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius and prevent the worst effects of climate change, which include floods, droughts and extreme heat.

The line could lower New England's annual carbon emissions by as much as 3 million metric tons, an amount roughly equal to Washington D.C.'s annual emissions. Opponents worry that reduction could be mostly offset by increases in other markets.

But while both sides have claimed they are fighting for the environment, much of the debate features giant corporations with headquarters outside of New England fighting over the future of the region's electricity market, echoing customer backlash seen in other utility takeovers.

Hydro-Quebec is owned by the people of Quebec, and CMP is owned by Avangrid, which is in turn owned by Spanish energy giant Iberdrola. Leading the charge against the line are several energy companies in the Fortune 500, including Houston-based Calpine and Florida-based NextEra Energy.

However, only one side of the debate counts environmental groups as part of its coalition, and, curiously enough, that's the side with fossil fuel companies.

Some environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Council of Maine and Environment Maine, have come out against the line, while others, including the Acadia Center and the Conservation Law Foundation, are still deciding whether to support or oppose the project. So far, none have endorsed the line.

"It is discouraging that some of the environmental groups are so opposed, but it seems the best is the enemy of the good," said CMP's Carroll in an email. "They seem to have no sense of urgency; and they treat HQ with nothing but distrust."

Much of the environmentally minded opposition to the project focuses on the impact the line would have on local wildlife and tourism.

Sandi Howard administers the Say NO To NECEC Facebook page and lives in Caratunk, one of the communities along the proposed path of the line. She said opposition to the line might change if it was proven to reduce emissions.

"If it were going to truly reduce global CO2 emissions, I think it would be be a different conversation," Howard said.

Not the first choice

Before Maine, New Hampshire had its own debate over whether it should serve as a conduit between Quebec and Massachusetts. The proposed Northern Pass transmission line would have run the length of the state. It was Massachusetts' first choice to bring Quebec hydropower to its residents.

But New Hampshire's Site Evaluation Committee unanimously voted to reject the Northern Pass project in February 2018 on the grounds that the project's sponsor, Eversource, had failed to prove the project would not interfere with local business and tourism. Though it was the source of the electricity that would have traveled over the line, Hydro-Quebec was not a party to the proceedings.

In its decision, the committee noted the project would not reduce emissions if it was not coupled with a "new source of hydropower" and the power delivered across the line was "diverted from Ontario and New York." The committee added that it was unclear if the power would be new or diverted.

The next month, Massachusetts replaced Northern Pass by selecting CMP's proposed line. As the project came before Maine regulators, questions about Hydro-Quebec and emissions persisted. Two different analyses of CMP's proposed line, including one by the Maine Public Utility Commission's independent consultant, found the line would greatly reduce New England's emissions.

But neither of those studies took into account the line's impact on emissions outside of New England. A study by Calpine's consultant, Energyzt, found New England's emissions reduction could be mostly offset by increased emissions in other areas, including New Brunswick and New York, that would see hydroelectricity imports shrink as energy was redirected to fulfill the contract with Massachusetts.

'They failed in any way to back up those spillage claims'

Hydro-Quebec seemed content to let CMP fight for the project alone before regulators for much of 2018. But at the end of the year, the utility took a more proactive approach, meeting with editorial boards and providing a two-page letter detailing its "spillage" issues to CMP, which entered it into the record at the Maine Public Utilities Commission.

The letter provided figures on the amount of water the utility spilled that could have been converted into sellable energy, if only Hydro-Quebec had a way to get it to market. Instead, by "spilling" the water, the company essentially wasted it.

Instead of sending water through turbines or storing it in reservoirs, hydroelectric operators sometimes discharge water held behind dams down spillways. This can be done for environmental reasons. Other times it is done because the operator has so much water it cannot convert it into electricity or store it, which is usually a seasonal issue: Reservoirs often contain the most water in the spring as temperatures warm and ice melts.

Hydro-Quebec said that, in 2017, it spilled water that could have produced 4.5 terawatt hours of electricity, or slightly more than half the energy needed to fulfill the Massachusetts contracts. In 2018, the letter continued, Hydro-Quebec spilled water that could have been converted into 10.4 terawatts worth of energy. The company said it didn't spill at all due to transmission constraints prior to 2017.

The contracts Hydro-Quebec signed with the Massachusetts utilities are for 9.45 terawatt hours annually for 20 years. In its letter, the utility essentially showed it had only one year of data to show it could cover the terms of the contract with "spilled" energy.

"Reservoir levels have been increasing in the last 15 years. Having reached their maximum levels, spillage maneuvers became necessary in 2017 and 2018," said Hydro-Quebec spokesperson Lynn St. Laurent.

By providing the letter through CMP, Hydro-Quebec did not have to subject its spillage figures to cross examination.

Dr. Shaleen Jain, a civil and environmental engineering professor at the University of Maine, said that, while spilled water could be converted into power generation in some circumstances, spills happen for many different reasons. Knowing whether spillage can be translated into energy requires a great deal of analysis.

"Not all of it can be repurposed or used for hydropower," Jain said.

In December, one of the Maine Public Utility Commission's independent consultants, Gabrielle Roumy, told the commission that there's "no way" to "predict how much water would be spilled each and every year." Roumy, who previously worked for Hydro-Quebec, added that even after seeing the utility's spillage figures, he believed it would need to divert energy from other markets to fulfill its commitment to Massachusetts.

"I think at this point we're still comfortable with our assumptions that, you know, energy would generally be redirected from other markets to NECEC if it were built," Roumy said.

In January, Tanya Bodell, the founder and executive director of consultant Energyzt, testified before the commission on behalf of Calpine that it was impossible to know why Hydro-Quebec was spilling without more data.

"There's a lot of details you'd have to look at in order to properly assess what the reason for the spillage is," Bodell said. "And you have to go into an hourly level because the flows vary across the year, within the month, the week, the days. ...And, frankly, it would have been nice if Hydro-Quebec was here and brought their model and allowed us to see how this could help them to sell more."

Even though CMP and Hydro-Quebec's path to securing approval of the project does not go through the Legislature, and despite a Maine court ruling that energized Hydro-Quebec's export bid, lawmakers have taken notice of Hydro-Quebec's absence. Rep. Seth Berry, D-Bowdoinham, the House chairman of the Joint Committee On Energy Utilities and Technology and a frequent critic of CMP, said he would like to see Hydro-Quebec "show up and subject their proposal to examination and full analysis and public examination by the regulators and the people of Maine."

"They're trying to sell an incredibly lucrative proposal, and they failed in any way to back up those spillage claims with defensible numbers and defensible analysis," Berry said.

Berry was part of a bipartisan group of Maine lawmakers that wrote a letter to Massachusetts regulators last year expressing concerns about the project, which included doubts about whether the line would actually reduce global gas emissions. On Monday, he announced legislation that would direct the state to create an independent entity to buy out CMP from its foreign investors.

'No benefit to remaining quiet'

Hydro-Quebec would like to provide answers, but "there is always a commercially sensitive information concern when we do these things," said spokesperson Abergel.

"There might be stuff we can do, having an independent study that looks at all of this. I'm not worried about the conclusion," Abergel said. "I'm worried about how long it takes."

Instead of asking Hydro-Quebec questions directly, participants in both Maine and Massachusetts regulatory proceedings have had to direct questions for Hydro-Quebec to CMP. That arrangement may be part of Hydro-Quebec's strategy to control its information, said former Maine Public Utilities Commissioner David Littell.

"From a tactical point of view, it may be more beneficial for the evidence to be put through Avangrid and CMP, which actually doesn't have that back-up info, so can't provide it," Littell said.

Getting information about the line from CMP, and its parent company Avangrid, has at times been difficult, opponents say.

In August 2018, the commission's staff warned CMP in a legal filing that it was concerned "about what appears to be a lack of completeness and timeliness by CMP/Avangrid in responding to data requests in this proceeding."

The trouble in getting information from Hydro-Quebec and CMP only creates more questions for Hydro-Quebec, said Jeremy Payne, executive director of the Maine Renewable Energy Association, which opposes the line in favor of Maine-based renewables.

"There's a few questions that should have relatively simple answers. But not answering a couple of those questions creates more questions," Payne said. "Why didn't you intervene in the docket? Why are you not a party to the case? Why won't you respond to these concerns? Why wouldn't you open yourself up to discovery?"

"I don't understand why they won't put it to bed," Payne said. "If you've got the proof to back it up, then there's no benefit to remaining quiet."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ukraine Nuclear Plant Ownership Proposal outlines U.S. management of Ukrainian reactors amid the Russia-Ukraine war, citing nuclear safety, energy security, and IAEA oversight; Kyiv rejects ownership transfer, especially regarding Zaporizhzhia under Russian control.

Key Points

U.S. control of Ukraine's nuclear plants for safety; Kyiv rejects transfer, citing sovereignty risks at Zaporizhzhia.

✅ U.S. proposal to manage Ukraine's reactors amid war

✅ Kyiv refuses ownership transfer; open to investment

✅ Zaporizhzhia under Russian control raises safety risks

In the midst of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial idea: Ukraine should give its nuclear power plants to the United States for safekeeping and management. This suggestion came during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wherein Trump expressed the belief that American ownership of these nuclear plants could offer them the best protection amid the ongoing war. But Kyiv, while open to foreign support, has firmly rejected the idea of transferring ownership, especially as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant remains under Russian occupation.

Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure has always been a vital component of its power generation. Before the war, the country’s four nuclear plants supplied nearly half of its electricity. As Russia's military forces target Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including power plants and coal mines, international watchdogs like the IAEA have warned of nuclear risks as these nuclear facilities have become crucial to maintaining the nation’s energy stability. The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, has attracted international concern due to its size and the ongoing threat of a potential nuclear disaster.

Trump’s Proposal and Ukraine’s Response

Trump’s proposal of U.S. ownership came as a response to the ongoing threats posed by Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant. Trump argued that the U.S., with its expertise in running nuclear power plants, could safeguard these facilities from further damage and potential nuclear accidents. However, Zelenskyy quickly clarified that the discussion was only focused on the Zaporizhzhia plant, which is currently under Russian control. The Ukrainian president emphasized that Kyiv would not entertain the idea of permanently transferring ownership of its nuclear plants, even though they would welcome investment in their restoration and modernization, particularly after the war.

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions since Russia's occupation in 2022. Despite being in "cold shutdown" to prevent further risk of explosions, the facility remains a major concern due to its potential to cause a nuclear disaster. Ukrainian officials, along with international observers, have raised alarm about the safety risks posed by the plant, including mines at Zaporizhzhia reported by UN watchdogs, which is situated in a war zone and under the control of Russian forces who are reportedly neglecting proper safety protocols.

The Fear of a Nuclear Provocation

Ukrainians have expressed concerns that Trump’s proposal could embolden Russia to escalate tensions further, even as a potential agreement on power-plant attacks has been discussed by some parties. Some fear that any attempt to reclaim the plant by Ukraine could trigger a Russian provocation, including a deliberate attack on the plant, which would have catastrophic consequences for both Ukraine and the broader region. The analogy is drawn with the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine accuses Russia of sabotaging, an act that severely disrupted water supplies to the Zaporizhzhia plant. Ukrainian military officials, including Ihor Romanenko, a former deputy head of Ukraine’s armed forces, warned that Trump’s suggestion might be an exploitation of Ukraine’s vulnerable position in the ongoing war.

Despite these fears, there are some voices within Ukraine, including former employees of the Zaporizhzhia plant, who believe that a deliberate attack by Russian forces is unlikely. They argue that the Russian military needs the plant in functioning condition for future negotiations, with Russia building new power lines to reactivate the site as part of that calculus, and any damage could reduce its value in such exchanges. However, the possibility of Russian negligence or mismanagement remains a significant risk.

The Strategic Role of Ukraine's Nuclear Plants

Ukraine's nuclear plants were a cornerstone of the country’s energy sector long before the conflict began. In recent years, as Ukraine lost access to coal resources in the Donbas region due to Russian occupation, nuclear power became even more vital, alongside a growing focus on wind power to improve resilience. The country’s reliance on these plants grew as Russia launched a sustained campaign to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including attacks on nuclear power stations.

The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, holds strategic importance not only due to its size but also because of its location in southeastern Ukraine, an area that has been at the heart of the conflict. Despite being in Russian hands, the plant’s reactors have been safely shut down, reducing the immediate risk of a nuclear explosion. However, the plant’s future remains uncertain, as Russia’s long-term control over it could disrupt Ukraine’s energy security for years to come.

Wider Concerns About Aging Nuclear Infrastructure

Beyond the geopolitical tensions, there are broader concerns about the aging infrastructure of Ukraine's nuclear power plants. International watchdogs, including the environmentalist group Bankwatch, have criticized these facilities as “zombie reactors” due to their outdated designs and safety risks. Experts have called for Ukraine to decommission some of these reactors, fearing that they are increasingly unsafe, especially in the context of a war.

However, Ukrainian officials, including Petro Kotin, head of Energoatom (Ukraine's state-owned nuclear energy company), argue that these reactors are still functional and critical to Ukraine's energy needs. The ongoing conflict, however, complicates efforts to modernize and secure these facilities, which are increasingly vulnerable to both physical damage and potential nuclear hazards.

The Global Implications

Trump's suggestion to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has raised significant concerns on the international stage. Some fear that such a move could set a dangerous precedent for nuclear security and sovereignty. Others see it as an opportunistic proposal that exploits Ukraine's wartime vulnerability.

While the future of Ukraine's nuclear plants remains uncertain, one thing is clear: these facilities are now at the center of a geopolitical struggle that could have far-reaching consequences for the energy security of Europe and the world. The safety of these plants and their role in Ukraine's energy future will remain a critical issue as the war continues and as Ukraine navigates its relations with both the U.S. and Russia, with the grid even having resumed electricity exports at times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. Energy Crunch disrupts fuel and power markets, driving natural gas price spikes, coal resurgence, utility mix shifts, supply chain strains for EV batteries, and inflation pressures, complicating climate policy, OPEC outreach and LNG trade

Key Points

Supply-demand gaps raise fuel costs, revive coal, strain EV materials, and complicate U.S. climate policy and plans.

✅ Natural gas spikes shift generation from gas to coal

✅ Supply chain shortages hit nickel, silicon, and chips

✅ Policy tensions between price relief and decarbonization

A global energy crunch is creating pain for people struggling to fill their tanks and heat their homes, as well as roiling the utility industry’s plans to change its mix of generation and complicating the Biden administration’s plans to tackle climate change.

The ripple effects of a surge in natural gas prices include a spike in coal use and emissions that counter clean energy targets. High fossil fuel prices also are translating into high prices and a supply crunch for key minerals like silicon used in clean energy projects. On a call with investors yesterday, a Tesla Inc. executive said the company is having a hard time finding enough nickel for batteries.

The crisis could pose political problems for the Biden administration, which spent the last few months fending off criticism about rising fuel prices and inflation (Energywire, Oct. 14).

“Energy issues at this moment are as salient to the American public as they have been in quite some time,” said Christopher Borick, who directs the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion in Pennsylvania, where Biden stopped yesterday to pitch his infrastructure plan.

While gasoline prices have gotten headlines all summer, natural gas prices have risen faster than motor fuels, more than doubling from an average $1.92 per thousand cubic feet in September 2020 to $5.16 last month. By comparison, gasoline prices have risen about 55 percent in the last year, to $3.36 per gallon nationwide this week, according to AAA.

The roots of the problem go back to the beginning of the pandemic and the recession in 2020. Oil and gas prices fell so fast then that many producers, particularly in the U.S., simply stopped drilling.

Oil companies began predicting a few months later that the abrupt shutdown would eventually lead to shortages and price spikes when the economy recovered. Those predictions turned out to be accurate.

With the economy beginning to recover, demand for gas has gone up, but there’s not enough supply to go around.

While the U.S. energy crunch isn’t as severe as Europe’s energy crisis today, and analysts predict that gas prices will gradually fall next year, consumers could be in for a rough couple of months.

Here’s four ways the global energy crisis is impacting the United States, from the electricity sector to the political landscape:

What are the political repercussions?
For the Biden administration, the energy price hikes come amid fears of rising inflation and persistent supply bottlenecks at the nation’s ports as its climate ambitions face headwinds in Congress.

“The confluence of energy prices, logistical challenges and the need to move on climate have raised this to the top tier,” said Borick, who in the past has polled on energy and environmental issues in Pennsylvania.

Borick noted the administration is facing counterpressures: Even as it pushes to decarbonize the nation’s electric system, it wants to keep gas prices in check. High gasoline prices have been linked to declining political approval ratings, including for presidents, even if much of the price hikes are beyond their control.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said earlier this month that the administration can take steps to address what it called “short-term supply issues,” but also needs to focus on the long term — and climate.

In hopes of capping prices, the White House has spoken with members of OPEC about increasing oil production — though OPEC has little control over natural gas prices. And earlier this month, the administration talked to U.S. oil and gas producers about helping to bring down prices.

That comes even as environmentalists have pushed Biden to ban federal fossil fuel leasing and drilling and stop new projects.

The moves to curb prices have prompted ridicule from Republicans, who have accused Biden of declaring war on U.S. energy by canceling the Keystone XL pipeline.

“The Biden administration won’t say it out loud, yet let’s admit it: There is a crisis,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said this week on the Senate floor. “It is one that Joe Biden and his administration has created. It is a crisis of Joe Biden’s own making.”

The situation has also resurfaced comparisons to former President Carter, who struggled politically in the 1970s with gasoline shortages and other energy pressures. Some political scientists say, though, the comparison between the two isn’t apples to apples.

"In 1979, the crisis began with the Iranian Revolution, producing a supply shortage. In the USA, some states rationed the supply. That’s not occurring now. Oil prices were also regulated, another difference, “ said Terry Madonna, a senior fellow in residence for political affairs at Millersville University.

A Morning Consult poll released yesterday carried warning signs for Democrats with worries about the economy on the rise across the political spectrum.

Voters, however, were evenly split on how Biden is handling energy. Forty-two percent of respondents approve of Biden’s energy policy, compared with 45 percent who disapproved. The margin of error is 2 percentage points.

Will the electricity mix change?
Higher gas prices are giving coal a boost in some markets.

Atlanta-based Southern Co. told CNBC earlier this week, for instance, that coal was about 17 percent of the company’s power mix last year. That has changed in 2021.

“The unintended consequence of high gas prices is that coal becomes more economic, and so my sense is … our coal production has bumped up above 20 percent,” Southern CEO Tom Fanning said. “Now, how long that’ll persist, I don’t know.”

Fanning said “what we’re seeing right now, and the real challenge in America, is this notion of energy in transition.”

But the U.S. power sector has been evolving for years, with more renewables and less coal on the grid, and experts say the current energy crunch won’t change long-term utility trends in the industry.

“In general, I wouldn’t place too much emphasis on short-term fluctuations,” Jay Apt, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, said in an email. “There is still a robust supply chain for most components needed for low-pollution power, including renewables.”

In fact, elevated fossil fuel prices, and high natural gas prices in particular, could accelerate the move toward wind, solar and batteries in some areas. That’s because power plants that run on coal and natural gas can be affected by rising and volatile fuel prices, as illustrated by the recent move in commodities globally. That means higher costs to run the facilities, even if power prices often climb along with gas prices.

“If I were a utility planner, this would cause me to double down on new generation from [wind] and solar and storage as opposed to building additional natural gas plants where, you know, I could be having these super high and volatile operating costs,” said Bri-Mathias Hodge, an associate professor in the Department of Electrical, Computer and Energy Engineering at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Ed Hirs, an energy fellow at the University of Houston, said the current global situation doesn’t change the U.S. power sector’s overall move toward generation with lower operating costs.

For example, he said nuclear and coal plants can require hundreds of employees, and both have fuel costs. Hirs said a gas facility also needs fuel and may need dozens of employees. Wind and solar facilities often need a smaller number of workers and don’t require fuel in their operations, he noted.

“Eventually the cheap wins out,” Hirs said.

That isn’t even factoring in climate change — the reason world leaders are seeking to slash greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, lowering emissions remains a priority among many states and big companies in the U.S.

Over the next 10 to 15 years, Hirs said, a key question will be whether battery technology can compete economically in terms of backing up renewables. He said a national carbon price, if enacted, would aid renewables and enhance returns on batteries.

“The real battle is going to be between natural gas and battery storage,” Hirs said.

Apt and M. Granger Morgan, who’s also a Carnegie Mellon professor, noted in a Hill piece last month that the U.S. gets about 40 percent of its power from carbon-free sources, including nuclear.

“Modelers and many power system operators agree that it is possible that renewables can cost-effectively make up roughly 80% of electricity generation,” the professors wrote, adding that other sources could include “storage and gas turbines powered with hydrogen, synfuels, or natural gas with carbon capture.”

What about EVs and renewables?
As for electric vehicles, executives with Tesla said on a call yesterday that supply-chain problems are the major brake on production for both vehicles and batteries.

Chief Financial Officer Zachary Kirkhorn said that the company’s factories aren’t running at full capacity because of an ongoing shortage of semiconductor chips. Customers are waiting longer for vehicles, he said, and wait lists are growing.

The challenges extend to raw materials. In batteries, Kirkhorn said, the company is having trouble finding enough nickel, and in vehicles, it is scrounging for aluminum. He said the problem is "not small," and that prices may rise as supply contracts come up for renewal.

The supply problems are creating "cost headwinds," he said, and so are rising labor costs. Tesla is not immune from the worker shortages that are plaguing the entire U.S. economy.

The production woes aren’t limited to Tesla: Automakers around the world have have had their output crimped by the chip shortage that accompanied the economic rebound after pandemic lockdowns. Unlike many other automakers, Tesla hasn’t been forced to pause its factory lines.

Tesla said it is poised to greatly expand its production of batteries for the electric grid — with a caveat.

Last month, Tesla broke ground on a new California factory to make Megapack, its 3 megawatt-per-hour lithium-ion batteries for use by power companies. That future factory’s capacity, 40 gigawatt per hour a year, is vastly more than the 3 GWh it made in the last calendar year.

However, today’s supply-chain problems are braking the making of both Megapack and Powerwall, Tesla’s battery for homes, Kirkhorn said. He added that production will increase "as soon as parts allow us."

Other advocates for EVs and renewable power expressed little concern about the supply crunch’s meaning for their industries, noting that higher prices alone don’t automatically trigger a broader green revolution on their own.

Those problems likely wouldn’t change the immediate course of the energy transition, researchers said.

"Short-term trends, week to week or even month to month, don’t matter much for investors or policy makers," wrote John Graham, a former budget official with the Bush administration and professor at Indiana University’s O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, in an email to E&E News.

The crunch may give policymakers a glimpse of the future, however, according to one minerals analyst.

"This isn’t going to be an outlier. I think increasingly you’re going to see pockets of the world start to feel these strains," said Andrew Miller, product director at Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, which focuses its research on battery minerals and battery supply chains.

The U.S. and its allies are only now beginning to develop their own supply chains for batteries and other key clean energy technologies, he noted. "The issue you’re facing, and this is one coming over time, is to have the platform in place. You have to have the supply chain of raw materials," he said.

"I think you’re going to see the most turbulence over the coming decade. … It’s not going to be a smooth transition,” added Miller.

How long will gas prices stay high?
The gap between natural gas demand and supply has led to severe price spikes in Europe, where utilities and other gas buyers have to compete against China for cargoes of liquefied natural gas, according to a research note from IHS Markit Ltd.

Here in the U.S., the causes are the same, but the results aren’t as extreme. Less than 10 percent of domestic gas production is exported as LNG, so American customers don’t have to compete as much against overseas buyers.

Instead, gas-hungry sectors of the economy have run into another problem, IHS analyst Matthew Palmer said in an interview. Gas producers have been cautious about increasing their output, largely because of pressure from investors to limit their spending.

“That theme has really put a governor on production,” he said.

The disconnect will likely mean higher home gas bills and higher electric prices this winter, although deep freeze events or warm weather could disrupt the trend, he said. The U.S. Energy Information Administration is predicting that average heating bills for homes that use gas furnaces will rise 30 percent this winter.

This comes as U.S. gas supply remains high, according to a biennial assessment from the Potential Gas Committee, a group of volunteer geoscientists, engineers and other experts.

Including reserves, future gas supply in the U.S. stands at a record 3,863 trillion cubic feet, up 25 tcf from levels reported in 2019, the group said Tuesday at an event co-hosted with the American Gas Association.

Of that total, so-called technically recoverable resources — or those in the ground but not yet recovered — are 3,368 tcf, the PGC said, down less than 0.2 percent from the last assessment.

The amount of technically recoverable gas went relatively unchanged from year-end 2018 for several reasons, including a lack of company activity in exploration efforts last year due to COVID, said Alexei Milkov, the group’s executive director.

Another factor is that basins mature and shale plays “cannot increase in resources forever,” said Milkov, also a professor of geology and geological engineering at the Colorado School of Mines.

Still, Milkov added, “We cannot tell you right now if we are on a new plateau, or if we are going to start seeing more growth in gas resources again, right, because it’s a complex issue.”

The EIA predicts that gas production will increase and prices will begin to drop in 2022.

David Flaherty, CEO of the Republican polling firm Magellan Strategies in Colorado, said prices could particularly hit seniors. But he said he expected the energy crunch to ease in the U.S. well before the election.

“By early summer, this is likely to be behind us,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Texas Blackout Liability Ruling clarifies appellate court findings in Houston, citing deregulated energy markets, ERCOT immunity, wholesale generators, retail providers, and 2021 winter storm lawsuits over grid failures and wrongful deaths.

Key Points

Houston judges held wholesale generators owe no duty to retail customers, limiting liability for 2021 blackout lawsuits.

✅ Court cites deregulated market and lack of privity to consumers

✅ Ruling shields generators from 2021 winter storm civil suits

✅ Plaintiffs plan appeals; legislature may address liability

Nearly three years after the devastating Texas blackout of 2021, a panel of judges from the First Court of Appeals in Houston has determined that major power companies cannot be held accountable for their failure to deliver electricity during the power grid crisis that unfolded, citing Texas' deregulated energy market as the reason.

This ruling appears likely to shield these companies from lawsuits that were filed against them in the aftermath of the blackout, leaving the families of those affected uncertain about where to seek justice.

In February 2021, a severe cold front swept over Texas, bringing extended periods of ice and snow. The extreme weather conditions increased energy demand while simultaneously reducing supply by causing power generators and the state's natural gas supply chain to freeze. This led to a blackout that left millions of Texans without power and water for nearly a week.

The state officially reported that almost 250 people lost their lives during the winter storm and subsequent blackout, although some analysts argue that this is a significant undercount and warn of blackout risks across the U.S. during severe heat as well.

In the wake of the storm, Texans affected by the energy system's failure began filing lawsuits, and lawmakers proposed a market bailout as political debate intensified. Some of these legal actions were directed against power generators whose plants either ceased to function during the storm or ran out of fuel for electricity generation.

After several years of legal proceedings, a three-judge panel was convened to evaluate the merits of these lawsuits.

This week, Chief Justice Terry Adams issued a unanimous opinion on behalf of the panel, stating, "Texas does not currently recognize a legal duty owed by wholesale power generators to retail customers to provide continuous electricity to the electric grid, and ultimately to the retail customers."

The opinion further clarified that major power generators "are now statutorily precluded by the legislature from having any direct relationship with retail customers of electricity."

This separation of power generation from transmission and retail electric sales in many parts of Texas resulted from energy market deregulation in the early 2000s, with the goal of reducing energy costs, and prompted electricity market reforms aimed at avoiding future blackouts.

Under the previous system, power companies were "vertically integrated," controlling generators, transmission lines, and selling the energy they produced directly to regional customers. However, in deregulated areas of Texas, competition was introduced, creating competing energy-generating companies and retail electric providers that purchase power wholesale and then sell it to residential consumers; meanwhile, electric cooperatives in other parts of the state remained member-owned providers.

Tré Fischer, a partner at the Jackson Walker law firm representing the power companies, explained, "One consequence of that was, because of the unbundling and the separation, you also don't have the same duties and obligations [to consumers]. The structure just doesn't allow for that direct relationship and correspondingly a direct obligation to continually supply the electricity even if there's a natural disaster or catastrophic event."

In the opinion, Justice Adams noted that when designing the Texas energy market, amid renewed interest in ways to improve electricity reliability across the grid, state lawmakers "could have codified the retail customers' asserted duty of continuous electricity on the part of wholesale power generators into law."

The recent ruling applies to five representative cases chosen by the panel out of hundreds filed after the blackout. Due to this decision, it is improbable that any of the lawsuits against power companies will succeed, according to the court's interpretation.

However, plaintiffs' attorneys have indicated their intention to appeal. They may request a review of the panel's opinion by the entire First Court of Appeals or appeal directly to the state supreme court.

The state Supreme Court had previously ruled that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the state's power grid operator, enjoys sovereign immunity and cannot be sued over the blackout.

This latest opinion raises the question of who, if anyone, can be held responsible for deaths and losses resulting from the blackout, a question left unaddressed by the court. Fischer commented, "If anything [the judges] were saying that is a question for the Texas legislature."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro-Que9bec COVID-19 M&A Pause signals a halt to international expansion as falling electricity demand, weaker exports, and revenue pressure shift capital to the Quebec economy, prioritizing domestic investment, strategic plan revisions, and risk management.

Key Points

Hydro-Que9bec COVID-19 M&A Pause halts overseas deals, shifting investment to Quebec as demand, exports and revenue fall.

✅ International M&A on hold; capital reallocated to Quebec projects

✅ Lower electricity demand reduces exports and spot prices

✅ Strategic plan and 2020 guidance revised downward

COVID-19 is forcing Hydro-Québec to pull the plug on its global ambitions — for now, even as its electricity ambitions have reopened old wounds in Newfoundland and Labrador in recent years.

Quebec’s state-owned power generator and distributor has put international mergers and acquisitions on hold for the foreseeable future because of the COVID-19 crisis, chief financial officer Jean-Hugues Lafleur said Friday.

Former chief executive officer Éric Martel, who left last month, had made foreign expansion a key tenet of his growth strategy.

“We’re in revision mode” as pertains to acquisitions, Lafleur told reporters on a conference call, as the company pursues a long-term strategy to wean the province off fossil fuels at home as well. “I don’t see how Hydro-Québec could take $5 billion now and invest it in Chile because we have an investment opportunity there. Instead, the $5 billion will be invested here to support the Quebec economy. We’re going to make sure the Quebec economy recovers the right way before we go abroad.”

Lafleur spoke after Hydro-Québec reported a 14-per-cent drop in first-quarter profit and warned full-year results will fall short of expectations as COVID-19 weighs on power demand.

Net income in the three-month period ended March 31 was $1.53 billion, down from $1.77 billion a year ago, Hydro-Québec said in a statement. Revenue fell about six per cent to $4.37 billion.

“Due to the economic downturn resulting from the current crisis, we’re anticipating lower electricity sales in all of our markets,” Lafleur said. “Consequently, the financial outlook for 2020 set out in the strategic plan 2020–2024, which also reflects the province’s no-nuclear stance, will be revised downward.”

It’s still too early to determine the scope of the revision, the company said in its quarterly report. Hydro-Québec was targeting net income of between $2.8 billion and $3 billion in 2020, according to its strategic plan.

The first quarter was the utility’s last under Martel, who quit to take over at jetmaker Bombardier Inc. Quebec appointed former Énergir CEO Sophie Brochu to replace him, effective April 6.

First-quarter results “weren’t significantly affected” by the pandemic, Lafleur said on a conference call with reporters. Electricity sales generated $294 million less than a year ago due primarily to milder temperatures, he said.

Results will start to reflect COVID-19’s impact in the second quarter, though NB Power has signed three deals to bring more Quebec electricity into the province that could cushion some exports.

Electricity consumption in Quebec has fallen five per cent in the past two months, paced by an 11-per-cent plunge for commercial and institutional clients, and cities such as Ottawa saw a demand plunge during closures.

Industrial customers such as pulp and paper producers have also curbed power use, and it’s hard to see demand rebounding this year, Lafleur said.

“What we’ve lost since the start of the pandemic is not coming back,” he said.

Demand on export markets, meanwhile, has shrunk between six per cent and nine per cent since mid-March. The drop has been particularly steep in Ontario, reaching as much as 12 per cent, after the province chose not to renew its electricity deal with Quebec earlier this year, compared with declines of up to five per cent in New England and eight per cent in New York.

Spot prices in the U.S. have retreated in tandem, falling this week to as low as 1.5 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour, Lafleur said. Hydro-Québec’s hedging strategy — which involves entering into fixed-price sales contracts about a year ahead of time — allowed the company to export power for an average of 4.9 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour in the first quarter, compared with the 2.2 cents it would have otherwise made.

Investments will decline this year as construction activity proceeds at reduced speed, Lafleur said. Hydro-Québec was initially planning to invest about $4 billion in the province, he said, as it works to increase hydropower capacity to more than 37,000 MW across its fleet.

Physical distancing measures “are having an impact on productivity,” Lafleur said. “We can’t work the way we wanted, and project costs are going to be affected. Anytime we send workers north on a plane, we need to leave an empty seat beside them.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Daimler Electric Strategy drives EV adoption with global battery factories, Mercedes-Benz electrified models, battery cells procurement, and major investments spanning vans, buses, trucks, and production capacity across Europe, Asia, and the USA.

Key Points

Daimler Electric Strategy is a multi-billion EV roadmap for batteries, factories, and 130 electrified Mercedes models.

✅ Eight battery factories across three continents

✅ EUR 10B for EV lineup; EUR 20B for battery cells

✅ 130 electrified variants plus vans, buses, trucks

Throughout 2018, we all witnessed the unprecedented volume of promises for a better future made by the giants of the auto industry. All say they've committed billions so that, within a decade, combustion engines will be on their way out.

The most active of all companies when talking about promises is Volkswagen, which, amid German plant closures, time and time again has said it will do this or that and completely change the meaning of car in the coming years. But there are other planning the same thing, possibly with even vaster resources.

Planning to end the year on a high note, Daimler detailed its plan for the electric future once again on Tuesday, this time making no secret of its gigantic size and scope.

As announced before, Daimler plans to build electric cars, but also manufacture electric batteries for its own and others’ use, and has launched a US energy storage company to support this strategy. These batteries will eventually be produced by Daimler in eight factories on three continents.

Batteries are already rolling off the lines in Kamenz, and a second facility will begin doing so next year. Two more factories will be built in Stuttgart-Untertürkheim, one at the company’s Sindelfingen site, and one each at the sites in Beijing (China), Bangkok (Thailand) and Tuscaloosa (USA).

In all, one billion EUR will be invested in the expansion of the global battery production network, but that is nothing compared to the 10 billion to be poured into the expansion of the Mercedes-Benz car fleet.

On top of that, 20 billion EUR will go towards the purchase of battery cells from producers all around the world, echoing other automakers' battery sourcing strategies worldwide over the next 12 years.

“After investing billions of euros in the development of the electric fleet and the expansion of our global battery network, we are now taking the next step,” said in a statement Dieter Zetsche, Daimler chairman of the board.

“With the purchase of battery cells for more than 20 billion euros, we are systematically pushing forward with the transformation into the electric future of our company.”

By 2022, the carmaker plans to launch 130 electrified variants of its cars, as cheaper, more powerful batteries become available, adding to them electric vans, buses and trucks. That pretty much means all the models and variants sold by Daimler globally will be at least partially powered by electricity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News