Denmark's largest energy company to stop using coal by 2023

EPA Wastewater Rule Rollback signals a move to rewrite 2015 Clean Water Act guidelines for coal-fired power plants, easing wastewater rules as heavy metals, mercury, lead, arsenic, and selenium threaten rivers, lakes, public health.

Key Points

A planned EPA rewrite of 2015 wastewater limits for coal plants, weakening protections against toxic heavy metals.

✅ Targets 2015 Clean Water Act wastewater guidelines

✅ Affects coal-fired steam electric power plants

✅ Raises risks from mercury, lead, arsenic, selenium

The Environmental Protection Agency says it plans to scrap an Obama-era measure limiting water pollution from coal-fired power plants, mirroring moves to replace the Clean Power Plan elsewhere in power-sector policy.

A letter from EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt released Monday as part of a legal appeal and amid a broader rewrite of NEPA rules said he will seek to revise the 2015 guidelines mandating increased treatment for wastewater from steam electric power-generating plants.

Acting at the behest of energy groups and electric utilities who opposed the stricter standards, Pruitt first moved in April to delay implementation of the new guidelines. The wastewater flushed from the coal-fired plants into rivers and lakes typically contains traces of such highly toxic heavy metals as lead, arsenic, mercury and selenium.

“After carefully considering your petitions, I have decided that it is appropriate and in the public interest to conduct a rulemaking to potentially revise (the regulations),” Pruitt wrote in the letter addressed to the pro-industry Utility Water Act Group and the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Pruitt’s letter, dated Friday, was filed Monday with the Fifth Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which is hearing legal challenges of the wastewater rule. With Pruitt now moving to rewrite the standards, EPA has asked to court to freeze the legal fight.

While that process moves ahead, EPA’s existing guidelines from 1982 remian in effect. Those standards were set when far less was known about the detrimental impacts of even tiny levels of heavy metals on human health and aquatic life.

“Power plants are by far the largest offenders when it comes to dumping deadly toxics into our lakes and rivers,” said Thomas Cmar, a lawyer for the legal advocacy group Earthjustice. “It’s hard to believe that our government officials right now are so beholden to big business that they are willing to let power plants continue to dump lead, mercury, chromium and other dangerous chemicals into our water supply.”

EPA estimates that the 2015 rule, if implemented, would reduce power plant pollution, consistent with new pollution limits proposed for coal and gas plants, by about 1.4 billion pounds a year. Only about 12 per cent of the nation’s steam electric power plants would have to make new investments to meet the higher standards, according to the agency.

Utilities would need to spend about $480 million on new wastewater treatment systems, resulting in about $500 million in estimated public benefits, such as fewer incidents of cancer and childhood developmental defects.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Natural Gas Plant Rethink signals a shift toward clean energy, renewables, distributed solar, battery storage, and grid modernization as LADWP and regulators pause repowering plans amid an electricity oversupply and rising ratepayer costs.

Key Points

California pauses new gas plants to assess renewables, storage, and grid solutions for reliability.

✅ LADWP delays $2.2B gas repowers to study clean alternatives

✅ CEC weighs halting Oxnard plant amid grid oversupply

✅ Distributed solar, batteries, demand response boost reliability

California energy officials are, for the first time, rethinking plans to build expensive natural gas power plants in the face of an electricity glut and growing use of cleaner and cheaper energy alternatives.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power announced Tuesday that it has put a hold on a $2.2-billion plan to rebuild several old natural gas power plants while it studies clean energy alternatives to meet electricity demands. And the California Energy Commission may decide as early as Thursday to halt a natural gas project in Ventura County.

The scrutiny comes after an investigation found that the state is operating with an oversupply of electricity, driven largely by the construction of gas-fueled generating plants, leading to higher rates as regulators consider a rate overhaul to clean the grid. The state’s power plants are on track to be able to produce at least 21% more electricity than needed by 2020, according to the Times report.

Californians are footing a $40-billion annual bill while using less electricity, paying $6.8 billion more than they did in 2008 when power use in the state was at its all-time high. Electricity consumption has since fallen and remained largely flat.

Utilities in California have been on a years-long building binge, adding new natural gas plants even as the nation’s electricity system has undergone significant change, including consumer choice reforms that are reshaping the market.

Where utilities once delivered all electrical services from huge power plants along miles of transmission lines, the industry now must consider power delivered to the electric grid not only from its own sources, but also from solar systems and batteries at homes and businesses.

At the same time, utilities have been aggressively upgrading or rebuilding their aging natural gas plants — a move critics have said is unnecessary because consumers are using less power and clean energy technology is making those plants obsolete.

The DWP and energy commission moves involve as many as seven natural gas plant projects proposed for Southern California, despite warnings about a looming shortage if capacity is retired too fast, from Oxnard to Carlsbad, at a cost of more than $6 billion.

Reiko Kerr, the DWP’s senior assistant general manager of power systems, said given the changes in the energy world, the assessment is necessary to protect ratepayer dollars and the environment.

“The whole utility paradigm has shifted,” Kerr said in an interview. “We really are doing our ratepayers a disservice by not considering all viable options.

“We’re just looking at everything,” she said. “What can help us solve this reliability, renewable and greenhouse gas challenge that we all have?”

State and local governments have felt a heightened sense of urgency to deal with climate change after President Trump decided last week to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord.

California already has mandated that at least 50% of the state’s electricity come from clean energy sources by 2030. Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) wants to increase that to 100% by 2045.

Building or overhauling natural gas plants throughout Southern California, environmentalists argue, isn’t helping achieve those goals, even as some contend the state can't keep the lights on without gas during the transition.

The DWP’s move to delay plans for the fossil fuel plants, which seemed all but set to be built, came as a surprise to clean-energy advocates, who hailed the decision.

“This is a great first step toward smart energy investments that save customers money, ensure the lights stay on and protect our health and environment,” Graciela Geyer of the Sierra Club said.

The environmental group said that if the utility had moved ahead with the $2.2-billion investment in repowering natural gas plants, it “would have blown an irreparable hole in the city and the state’s hopes to achieve 100% generation” from clean energy sources.

Angela Johnson Meszaros, attorney at EarthJustice, said in a statement: "As our city struggles with the worst smog we’ve seen in years, we appreciate that LADWP is taking some much-needed time to reassess its plans to build fossil fuel power plants. We look forward to the day that LADWP announces that we are going to power our city with 100% clean energy.”

The gas-fired generating units slated for demolition and rebuilding are at the Scattergood, Haynes and Harbor electricity plants, which range from 34 to 67 years old.

As a group, the three plants have generated less than 20% of their combined capacity since 2001. The Harbor facility has operated on the low end at just 7%, while Haynes ran on the high end at 22%.

“The old model, the old legacy clunkers, won’t get us into the future we want,” DWP’s Kerr said.

DWP staff members told the utility’s’ commissioners Tuesday that their analysis of possible alternatives would be completed no later than early 2018.

Separately, the California Energy Commission this week is evaluating whether to halt a natural gas project in Ventura County after the state’s electric grid operator offered to conduct a study of clean energy alternatives to the roughly $250-million project on Mandalay Bay in Oxnard.

An energy commission committee has been deliberating since a hearing Monday during which Southern California Edison and the project’s developer, NRG Energy, argued that a study is simply a delay tactic that probably would kill a project needed to ensure reliable electric service and to avoid blackouts during peak demand.

The California Independent System Operator, which runs the state’s electric grid, told the energy commission that it would take three to four weeks to conduct its study on alternatives to the Oxnard natural gas project.

“Here we have an actual offer by the ISO to do such an analysis,” Ellison Folk, a lawyer representing the city of Oxnard, told the energy commission as she pushed for the study. “Its view that this is an analysis worth doing is something worth taking seriously.”

Energy commission members reviewing the study proposal are scheduled to meet again Thursday to consider the offer.

The board of governors for the California Independent System Operator made the unusual offer at its May 1 meeting to conduct a eleventh-hour study of clean-energy alternatives to building a new natural gas plant.

“If we’re going to be moving forward with a gas plant at this time, in this juncture, in the context of everything that’s going on, not evaluating other alternatives that are viable, noncombustion alternatives, is a missed opportunity,” Angelina Galetiva. a commission board member, said during the May 1 meeting.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Hydro Rate Cuts address soaring electricity prices, lowering hydro bills via refinancing, FAO-reviewed costs, and long-term infrastructure investment, balancing ratepayer relief with a projected $21 billion net expense over 30 years.

Key Points

Ontario electricity bill relief spreading infrastructure and green energy costs over 30 years via refinancing.

✅ 25% average bill cut; $156 to $123 per month

✅ FAO projects $21B net cost over 30 years

✅ Costs shifted to long-term debt, infrastructure, green energy

Premier Kathleen Wynne is making no apologies for the Liberals’ 25 per cent hydro rate cuts, legislation to lower electricity rates that a legislative watchdog warns will cost at least $21 billion over three decades.

In the wake of Financial Accountability Officer Stephen LeClair’s report on the “Fair Hydro Plan,” Wynne emphasized that Ontario electricity consumers demanded and deserved relief.

“You all read the newspaper, you listen to the radio and you watch television — you know the problems that families are having around the province paying for their electricity costs,” the premier told reporters Thursday in Timmins.

That’s why the government moved forward with a rate cut, with recent Hydro One reconnections underscoring the stakes, that will see the average household’s monthly hydro bill drop from $156 to $123 once it fully takes effect next month.

In a 15-page report released Wednesday, the financial accountability officer estimated the initiative would cost the province $45 billion over the next 29 years amid a cabinet warning on prices that electricity costs could soar, while saving ratepayers $24 billion for a next expense of $21 billion.

Both the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democrats oppose the Liberal rate cut, arguing that a deal with Quebec would not lower hydro bills.

But Wynne said the government has in effect renegotiated a mortgage so it will bankroll hydro infrastructure improvements over a longer time period, though some have urged the next government to scrap the Fair Hydro Plan and review options, in order to give customers a break now.

“We’re talking about a 30-year window here. It took at least 30 years, probably 40 years, to let the electricity system degrade to the stage that it had in 2003,” she said, noting “we were having blackouts and brownouts around the province” before her party took office that year.

“There were thousands of kilometres of line that needed to be rebuilt . . . that work hadn’t been done over those generations, so electricity costs were low over that period of time but the work wasn’t being done.”

When her predecessor Dalton McGuinty came to power in 2003, Wynne said Queen’s Park began spending billions on infrastructure improvements, including expensive subsidies for green energy, such as wind turbines and solar panels.

“There’s a lot of work that has been done since then. Literally thousands of kilometres of line have been rebuilt. The coal-fired plants have been shut down. The air is cleaner. There’s less pollution in the air. The system is reliable and renewable,” she said.

“So there’s a cost associated with that and what was happening was that was work that had to be done — and all of those costs were on the shoulders of people today.”

Wynne noted “this electricity grid is an asset that is going to be used for generations to come.”

“My grandchildren are going to benefit from this asset, so I think it’s fair that we spread the cost of that over that 30-year period,” she said.

“That’s how we made this decision.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

US Shift From Coal to Renewables accelerates as natural gas, solar, and wind power gain market share, driven by the Paris climate agreement, clean energy mandates, smart grid upgrades, and energy efficiency.

Key Points

An industry trend where power producers replace coal with natural gas, solar, and wind to meet clean energy goals.

✅ Shareholders and customers demand cleaner power portfolios

✅ Natural gas, solar, and wind outcompete coal on cost and risk

✅ Smart grid and efficiency investments reduce emissions further

President Trump once again promised to revive the U.S. coal industry when he announced his intention to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement.

But that reversal seems as unlikely as ever as electric power producers, the biggest consumers of coal in the U.S., continue to shift to natural gas and renewable energy sources like solar and wind power. In 2016, natural gas became the leading fuel for U.S. electricity generation for the first time, responsible for 33.8% of the output, compared with 30.4% for coal, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, even as coal-fired generation was projected to rise in 2021 in the short term.

Nick Akins, the CEO of American Electric Power, one of the largest utilities in the U.S., says the preference for gas, renewables and energy efficiency, will only grow in response to increasing demands from shareholders and customers for cleaner energy, regardless of changes in national energy policy.

With 5.4 million customers in 11 states, AEP plans to spend $1.5 billion on renewable energy from 2017 through 2019, and $13 billion on transmission and distribution improvements, including new “smart” technologies that will make the grid more resilient and efficient, AEP says.

We spoke with Akins on Thursday, just after Trump’s announcement. The transcript is edited for length and clarity.

What do you think of Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. from the climate agreement?

I don’t think it’s unexpected. He obviously made the point that he’s willing to renegotiate or have further dialogue about it. That’s a good sign. From our perspective, we’re going to continue along the path we’re already on toward a cleaner energy economy.

AEP and the U.S. electric power industry in general have been moving away from coal in favor of natural gas and renewable energy. Will this decision by the Trump administration have any impact on that trend?

If you look at our resource plans in all of the states we serve, they are focused on renewables, natural gas and transmission, as declining returns from coal generation pressure investment choices across the industry. And big-data analytics improves the efficiency of the grid, so energy efficiency is obviously a key component, as Americans use less electricity overall.

Our carbon dioxide emissions in 2016 were 44% below 2000 levels, and that progress will continue with the additions of more renewables, energy efficiency and natural gas.

So, you don’t see coal making a comeback at AEP or other utilities?

No, I don’t think so. … You wouldn’t make a decision (to build a coal power plant) at this point because it’s heavily capital-intensive, and involves a longer-term process and risk to build. And, of course, you can add renewables that are very efficient and natural gas that’s efficient and much less expensive and risky, in terms of construction and operation.

Do you plan to close any more coal-powered plants soon? 

I suspect we’ll see some more retirements in the future, with coal and nuclear closures test just transition in many communities, and as we progress towards that cleaner energy economy, and consider the expectations of our customers and shareholders for us to mitigate risk, you’ll continue to see that happen.

But on the other hand, I want to make sure there’s an understanding that coal will remain a part of the portfolio, even though in rare cases new coal plants are still being built where options are limited, but it will be of a lesser degree because of these other resources that are available to us now that weren’t available to us just a few years ago.

Do you find yourself under more or less pressure from customers and shareholders to move to cleaner forms of energy?

I think there’s more pressure. Investors are looking for the sustainability of the company going forward and mitigation of risks … From a customer standpoint, we have some large customers interested in moving into our service territory who are looking for cleaner energy, and want to know if we’re focused on that. Some of them want to be supplied entirely by those clean sources. So, we’re clearly responding to our customers’ and our shareholders’ expectations.

What’s the solution for workers at coal mines and coal power plants who have lost their jobs?

Certainly, the skill sets of employees in mining and around machinery are transferable to other areas of manufacturing, like aerospace and defense. So, we’re really focusing on economic-development efforts in our service territories … particularly in the coal states … to bring coal miners back to work, not necessarily in coal mines but certainly (in manufacturing).

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

STM Electric Buses Montreal launch a zero-emission pilot with rapid charging stations on the 36 Monk line from Angrignon to Square Victoria, winter-tested for reliability and aligned with STM's 2025 fully electric fleet plan.

Key Points

STM's pilot deploys zero-emission buses with charging on the 36 Monk line, aiming for a fully electric fleet by 2025.

✅ 36 Monk route: Angrignon to Square Victoria with rapid charging

✅ Winter-tested performance; 15-25 km range per charge

✅ Quebec-built: motors Boucherville; buses Saint-Eustache

The first of three STM electric buses are rolling in Montreal, similar to initiatives with Vancouver electric buses elsewhere in Canada today.

The test batch is part of the city's plan to have a fully electric fleet by 2025, mirroring efforts such as St. Albert's electric buses in Alberta as well.

Over the next few weeks, one bus at a time will be put into circulation along the 36 Monk line, a rollout approach similar to Edmonton's first electric bus efforts in that city, going from Angrignon Metro station to Square Victoria Metro station. 

Rapid charging stations have been set up at both locations, a model seen in TTC's battery-electric rollout to support operations, so that batteries can be charged during the day between routes. The buses are also going to be fully charged at regular charging stations overnight.

Each bus can run from 15 to 25 kilometres on a single charge. The Monk line was chosen in part for its length, around 11 kilometres.

The STM has been testing the electric buses to make sure they can stand up to Montreal's harsh winters, drawing on lessons from peers such as the TTC electric bus fleet in Toronto, and now they are ready to take on passengers.

Keeping it local

The motors were designed in Boucherville, and the buses themselves were built in Saint-Eustache.

No timeline has been set for when the STM will be ready to roll out the whole fleet, but Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre, who was on hand at Tuesday's unveiling, told reporters he has confidence in the $11.9-million program.

"We start with three. Trust me, there will be more." said Coderre.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Renewable Energy Market Reform aligns solar and wind with modern grid pricing, tackling intermittency via batteries and demand response, stabilizing wholesale power prices, and enabling capacity markets to finance flexible supply for deep decarbonization.

Key Points

A market overhaul that integrates variable renewables, funds flexibility, and stabilizes grids as solar and wind grow.

✅ Dynamic pricing rewards flexibility and demand response

✅ Capacity markets finance reliability during intermittency

✅ Smart grids, storage, HV lines balance variable supply

ALMOST 150 years after photovoltaic cells and wind turbines were invented, they still generate only 7% of the world’s electricity. Yet something remarkable is happening. From being peripheral to the energy system just over a decade ago, they are now growing faster than any other energy source and their falling costs are making them competitive with fossil fuels. BP, an oil firm, expects renewables to account for half of the growth in global energy supply over the next 20 years. It is no longer far-fetched to think that the world is entering an era of clean, unlimited and cheap, abundant electricity for all. About time, too. 

There is a $20trn hitch, though. To get from here to there requires huge amounts of investment over the next few decades, to replace old smog-belching power plants and to upgrade the pylons and wires that bring electricity to consumers. Normally investors like putting their money into electricity because it offers reliable returns. Yet green energy has a dirty secret. The more it is deployed, the more it lowers the price of power from any source. That makes it hard to manage the transition to a carbon-free future, during which many generating technologies, clean and dirty, need to remain profitable if the lights are to stay on. Unless the market is fixed, subsidies to the industry will only grow.

Policymakers are already seeing this inconvenient truth as a reason to put the brakes on renewable energy. In parts of Europe and China, investment in renewables is slowing as subsidies are cut back, even as Europe’s electricity demand continues to rise. However, the solution is not less wind and solar. It is to rethink how the world prices clean energy in order to make better use of it.

Shock to the system

At its heart, the problem is that government-supported renewable energy has been imposed on a market designed in a different era. For much of the 20th century, electricity was made and moved by vertically integrated, state-controlled monopolies. From the 1980s onwards, many of these were broken up, privatised and liberalised, so that market forces could determine where best to invest. Today only about 6% of electricity users get their power from monopolies. Yet everywhere the pressure to decarbonise power supply has brought the state creeping back into markets. This is disruptive for three reasons. The first is the subsidy system itself. The other two are inherent to the nature of wind and solar: their intermittency and their very low running costs. All three help explain why power prices are low and public subsidies are addictive.

First, the splurge of public subsidy, of about $800bn since 2008, has distorted the market. It came about for noble reasons—to counter climate change and prime the pump for new, costly technologies, including wind turbines and solar panels. But subsidies hit just as electricity consumption in the rich world was stagnating because of growing energy efficiency and the financial crisis. The result was a glut of power-generating capacity that has slashed the revenues utilities earn from wholesale power markets and hence deterred investment.

Second, green power is intermittent. The vagaries of wind and sun—especially in countries without favourable weather—mean that turbines and solar panels generate electricity only part of the time. To keep power flowing, the system relies on conventional power plants, such as coal, gas or nuclear, to kick in when renewables falter. But because they are idle for long periods, they find it harder to attract private investors. So, to keep the lights on, they require public funds.

Everyone is affected by a third factor: renewable energy has negligible or zero marginal running costs—because the wind and the sun are free. In a market that prefers energy produced at the lowest short-term cost, wind and solar take business from providers that are more expensive to run, such as coal plants, depressing wholesale electricity prices, and hence revenues for all.

Get smart

The higher the penetration of renewables, the worse these problems get—especially in saturated markets. In Europe, which was first to feel the effects, utilities have suffered a “lost decade” of falling returns, stranded assets and corporate disruption. Last year, Germany’s two biggest electricity providers, E.ON and RWE, both split in two. In renewable-rich parts of America, power providers struggle to find investors for new plants, reflecting U.S. grid challenges that slow a full transition. Places with an abundance of wind, such as China, are curtailing wind farms to keep coal plants in business.

The corollary is that the electricity system is being re-regulated as investment goes chiefly to areas that benefit from public support. Paradoxically, that means the more states support renewables, the more they pay for conventional power plants, too, using “capacity payments” to alleviate intermittency. In effect, politicians rather than markets are once again deciding how to avoid blackouts. They often make mistakes: Germany’s support for cheap, dirty lignite caused emissions to rise, notwithstanding huge subsidies for renewables. Without a new approach the renewables revolution will stall.

The good news is that new technology can help fix the problem.  Digitalisation, smart meters and batteries are enabling companies and households to smooth out their demand—by doing some energy-intensive work at night, for example. This helps to cope with intermittent supply. Small, modular power plants, which are easy to flex up or down, are becoming more popular, as are high-voltage grids that can move excess power around the network more efficiently, aligning with common goals for electricity networks worldwide.

The bigger task is to redesign power markets to reflect the new need for flexible supply and demand. They should adjust prices more frequently, to reflect the fluctuations of the weather. At times of extreme scarcity, a high fixed price could kick in to prevent blackouts. Markets should reward those willing to use less electricity to balance the grid, just as they reward those who generate more of it. Bills could be structured to be higher or lower depending how strongly a customer wanted guaranteed power all the time—a bit like an insurance policy. In short, policymakers should be clear they have a problem and that the cause is not renewable energy, but the out-of-date system of electricity pricing. Then they should fix it.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News