AG Hood and Entergy fight has no end in sight

Idaho Power Valmy Settlement outlines early closure of the North Valmy coal-fired plant in Nevada, accelerated depreciation recovery, a 1.17% base-rate increase, and impacts for customers, NV Energy co-ownership, and Idaho Public Utilities Commission review.

Key Points

A proposed agreement to close North Valmy early, recover costs via a 1.17% rate hike, and seek PUC approval.

✅ Unit 1 closes 2019; Unit 2 closes 2025 in Nevada.

✅ 1.17% base-rate hike; about $1.20 per 1,000 kWh monthly bill.

✅ Idaho PUC comment deadline May 25; NV Energy co-owner.

State regulators have set a May 25 deadline for public comment on a proposed settlement related to the early closure of a coal-fired plant co-owned by Idaho Power, even as some utilities plan to keep a U.S. coal plant running indefinitely in other jurisdictions.

The settlement calls for shuttering Unit 1 of the North Valmy Power Plant in Nevada in 2019, with Unit 2 closing in 2025, amid regional coal unit retirements debates. The units had been slated for closure in 2031 and 2035, respectively.

If approved by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, the settlement would increase base rates by approximately $13.3 million, or 1.17 percent, in order to allow the company to recover its investment in the plant on an accelerated basis.

That equates to an additional $1.20 on the monthly bill of the typical residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours of energy per month.

Idaho Power, which co-owns the plant with NV Energy, maintains that closing Valmy early rather than continuing to operate it until it is fully depreciated in 2035, will ultimately save customers $103 million in today's dollars.

The company said a significant decrease in market prices for electricity has made it uneconomic to operate the plant except during extremely cold or hot weather, when the demand for energy peaks, a trend underscored by transactions involving the San Juan Generating Station deal elsewhere. The company also said plant balances have increased by approximately $70 million since its last general rate case in 2011, due to routine maintenance and repairs, as well as investments required to meet environmental regulations.

The proposed settlement reflects a number of changes to Idaho Power's original proposal regarding Valmy, and comes in the wake of discussions with interested parties in February and April, against the backdrop of a broader energy debate over plant closures and reliability.

In its initial application, filed in October, Idaho Power proposed closing both units in 2025. The original proposal would have increased base rates by $28.5 million, or about 2.5 percent, in order to allow the company to recover its costs associated with the plant's accelerated depreciation, decommissioning and anticipated investments, with cautionary examples such as the Kemper power plant costs illustrating potential risks.

Concurrently, Idaho Power asked for commission approval to adjust depreciation rates for its other plants and equipment based on the result of a study it conducts every five years, as outlined in Case IPC-E-16-23. The adjustment would have led to a $6.7 million increase to base rates.

The two requests filed in October would have increased customer costs by a total of $35.2 million or 3.1 percent, leading to a $3.08 increase on the bills of the typical residential customer who uses 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month.

The proposed settlement submitted to the Commission on May 4 calls for $13,285,285 to be recovered from all customer classes through base rates until 2028, all related to the Valmy shutdown. That is an increase of 1.17 percent and would result in a $1.20 increase on the bills of the typical residential customer who uses 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ukraine Power Grid Attacks disrupt critical infrastructure as missiles and drones strike power plants, substations, and lines, causing blackouts. Emergency repairs, international aid, generators, and renewables bolster resilience and keep hospitals and water running.

Key Points

Russian strikes on Ukraine's power infrastructure cause blackouts; repairs and aid sustain hospitals and water.

✅ Missile and drone strikes target plants, substations, and lines.

✅ Crews restore power under fire; air defenses protect sites.

✅ Allies supply equipment, generators, and grid repair expertise.

Ukraine is facing an ongoing battle to maintain its electrical grid in the wake of relentless Russian attacks targeting power plants and energy infrastructure. These attacks, which have intensified in the last year, are part of Russia's broader strategy to weaken Ukraine's ability to function amid the ongoing war. Power plants, substations, and energy lines have become prime targets, with Russian forces using missiles and drones to destroy critical infrastructure, as western Ukraine power outages have shown, leaving millions of Ukrainians without electricity and heating during harsh winters.

The Ukrainian government and energy companies are working tirelessly to repair the damage and prevent total blackouts, while also trying to ensure that civilians have access to vital services like hospitals and water supplies. Ukraine has received support from international allies in the form of technical assistance and equipment to help strengthen its power grid, and electricity reserve updates suggest outages can be avoided if no new strikes occur. However, the ongoing nature of the attacks and the complexity of repairing such extensive damage make the situation extraordinarily difficult.

Despite these challenges, Ukraine's resilience is evident, even as winter pressures on the battlefront intensify operations. Energy workers are often working under dangerous conditions, risking their lives to restore power and prevent further devastation. The Ukrainian government has prioritized the protection of energy infrastructure, with military forces being deployed to safeguard workers and critical assets.

Meanwhile, the international community continues to support Ukraine through financial and technical aid, though some U.S. support programs have ended recently, as well as providing temporary power solutions, like generators, to keep essential services running. Some countries have even sent specialized equipment to help repair damaged power lines and energy plants more quickly.

The humanitarian consequences of these attacks are severe, as access to electricity means more than just light—it's crucial for heating, cooking, and powering medical equipment. With winter temperatures often dropping below freezing, plans to keep the lights on are vital to protect vulnerable communities, and the lack of reliable energy has put many lives at risk.

In response to the ongoing crisis, Ukraine has also focused on enhancing its energy independence, seeking alternatives to Russian-supplied energy. This includes exploring renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, and new energy solutions adopted by communities to overcome winter blackouts, which could help reduce reliance on traditional energy grids and provide more resilient options in the future.

The battle for energy infrastructure in Ukraine illustrates the broader struggle of the country to maintain its sovereignty and independence in the face of external aggression. The destruction of power plants is not only a military tactic but also a psychological one—meant to instill fear and disrupt daily life. However, the unwavering spirit of the Ukrainian people, alongside international support, including Ukraine's aid to Spain during blackouts as one example, continues to ensure that the fight to "keep the lights on" is far from over.

As Ukraine works tirelessly to repair its energy grid, it also faces the challenge of preparing for the long-term impact of these attacks. The ongoing war has highlighted the importance of securing energy infrastructure in modern conflicts, and the world is watching as Ukraine's resilience in this area could serve as a model for other nations facing similar threats.

Ukraine’s energy struggle is far from over, but its determination to keep the lights on remains a beacon of hope and defiance in the face of ongoing adversity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Massachusetts Energy Code Updates align DOER regulations with BBRS standards, advancing Stretch Code and Specialized Code beyond the Base Energy Code to accelerate net-zero construction, electrification, and high-efficiency building performance across municipal opt-in communities.

Key Points

They are DOER-led changes to Base, Stretch, and Specialized Codes to drive net-zero, electrified, efficient buildings.

✅ Updates apply Base, Stretch, or opt-in Specialized Code.

✅ Targets net-zero by 2050 with electrification-first design.

✅ Municipalities choose code path via City Council or Town Meeting.

Massachusetts will soon see significant updates to the energy codes that govern the construction and alteration of buildings throughout the Commonwealth.

As required by the 2021 climate bill, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) has recently finalized regulations updating the current Stretch Energy Code, previously promulgated by the state's Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS), and establishing a new Specialized Code geared toward achieving net-zero building energy performance.

The final code has been submitted to the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy for review as required under state law, amid ongoing Connecticut market overhaul discussions that could influence regional dynamics.

Under the new regulations, each municipality must apply one of the following:

Base Energy Code - The current Base Energy Code is being updated by the BBRS as part of its routine updates to the full set of building codes. This base code is the default if a municipality has not opted in to an alternative energy code.

Stretch Code - The updated Stretch Code creates stricter guidelines on energy-efficiency for almost all new constructions and alterations in municipalities that have adopted the previous Stretch Code, paralleling 100% carbon-free target in Minnesota and elsewhere to support building decarbonization. The updated Stretch Code will automatically become the applicable code in any municipality that previously opted-in to the Stretch Code.

Specialized Code - The newly created Specialized Code includes additional requirements above and beyond the Stretch Code, designed to get to ensure that new construction is consistent with a net-zero economy by 2050, similar to Canada's clean electricity regulations that set a 2050 decarbonization pathway. Municipalities must opt-in to adopt the Specialized Code by vote of City Council or Town Meeting.

The new codes are much too detailed to summarize in a blog post. You can read more here. Without going into those details here, it is worth noting a few significant policy implications of the new regulations:

With roughly 90% of Massachusetts municipalities having already adopted the prior version of the Stretch Code, the Commonwealth will effectively soon have a new base code that, even if it does not mandate zero-energy buildings, is nonetheless very aggressive in pushing new construction to be as energy-efficient as possible, as jurisdictions such as Ontario clean electricity regulations continue to reshape the power mix.

Although some concerns have been raised about the cost of compliance, particularly in a period of high inflation, and amid solar demand charge debates in Massachusetts, our understanding is that many developers have indicated that they can work with the new regulations without significant adverse impacts.

Of course, the success of the new codes depends on the success of the Commonwealth's efforts to transition quickly to a zero-carbon electrical grid, supported by initiatives like the state's energy storage solicitation to bolster reliability. If the cost of doing so is higher than expected, there could well be public resistance. If new transmission doesn't get built out sufficiently quickly or other problems occur, such that the power is not available to electrify all new construction, that would be a much more significant problem - for many reasons!

In short, the new regulations unquestionably set the Commonwealth on a course to electrify new construction and squeeze carbon emissions out of new buildings. However, as with the rest of our climate goals, there are a lot of moving pieces, including proposals for a clean electricity standard shaping the power sector that are going to have to come together to make the zero-carbon economy a reality.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Hornsea One Offshore Wind Farm delivers first power to the UK grid, scaling renewable energy with 1.2GW capacity, giant offshore turbines, and Yorkshire coast infrastructure to replace delayed nuclear and cut fossil fuel emissions.

Key Points

Hornsea One Offshore Wind Farm is a 1.2GW UK project delivering offshore renewable power to about 1 million homes.

✅ 174 turbines over 407 km2; Siemens Gamesa supply chain in the UK

✅ 1.2GW capacity can power ~1m homes; phases scale with 10MW+ turbines

✅ Supports UK grid, replaces delayed nuclear, cuts fossil generation

An offshore windfarm on the Yorkshire coast that will dwarf the world’s largest when completed is to supply its first power to the UK electricity grid this week, mirroring advances in tidal electricity projects delivering to the grid as well.

The Danish developer Ørsted, which has installed the first of 174 turbines at Hornsea One, said it was ready to step up its plans and fill the gap left by failed nuclear power schemes.

The size of the project takes the burgeoning offshore wind power sector to a new scale, on a par with conventional fossil fuel-fired power stations.

Hornsea One will cover 407 square kilometres, five times the size of the nearby city of Hull. At 1.2GW of capacity it will power 1m homes, making it about twice as powerful as today’s biggest offshore windfarm once it is completed in the second half of this year.

“The ability to generate clean electricity offshore at this scale is a globally significant milestone at a time when urgent action needs to be taken to tackle climate change,” said Matthew Wright, UK managing director of Ørsted, the world’s biggest offshore windfarm builder.

The power station is only the first of four planned in the area, with a green light and subsidies already awarded to a second stage due for completion in the early 2020s, and interest from Japanese utilities underscoring growing investor appetite.

The first two phases will use 7MW turbines, which are taller than London’s Gherkin building.

But the latter stages of the Hornsea development could use even more powerful, 10MW-plus turbines. Bigger turbines will capture more of the energy from the wind and should lower costs by reducing the number of foundations and amount of cabling firms need to put into the water, with developers noting that offshore wind can compete with gas in the U.S. as costs fall.

Henrik Poulsen, Ørsted’s chief executive, said he was in close dialogue with major manufacturers to use the new generation of turbines, some of which are expected to approach the height of the Shard in London, the tallest building in the EU.

The UK has a great wind resource and shallow enough seabed to exploit it, and could even “power most of Europe if it [the UK] went to the extreme with offshore”, he said.

Offshore windfarms could help ministers fill the low carbon power gap created by Hitachi and Toshiba scrapping nuclear plants, the executive suggested. “If nuclear should play less of a role than expected, I believe offshore wind can step up,” he said.

New nuclear projects in Europe had been “dramatically delayed and over budget”, he added, in comparison to “the strong track record for delivering offshore [wind]”.

The UK and Germany installed 85% of new offshore wind power capacity in the EU last year, according to industry data, with wind leading power across several markets. The average power rating of the turbines is getting bigger too, up 15% in 2018.

The turbines for Hornsea One are built and shipped from Siemens Gamesa’s factory in Hull, part of a web of UK-based suppliers that has sprung up around the growing sector, such as Prysmian UK's land cables supporting grid connections.

Around half of the project’s transition pieces, the yellow part of the structure that connects the foundation to the tower, are made in Teeside. Many of the towers themselves are made by a firm in Campbeltown in the Scottish highlands. Altogether, about half of the components for the project are made in the UK.

Ørsted is not yet ready to bid for a share of a £60m pot of further offshore windfarm subsidies, to be auctioned by the government this summer, but expects the price to reach even more competitive levels than those seen in 2017.

Like other international energy companies, Ørsted has put in place contingency planning in event of a no-deal Brexit – but the hope is that will not come to pass. “We want a Brexit deal that will facilitate an orderly transition out of the union,” said Poulsen.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

France Nuclear Power Strategy illustrates a low-carbon, reliable baseload complementing renewables in the energy transition, enhancing grid reliability, energy security, and emissions reduction, offering actionable lessons for Germany on infrastructure, policy, and public acceptance.

Key Points

France's nuclear strategy is a low-carbon baseload model supporting renewables, grid reliability, and energy security.

✅ Stable low-carbon baseload complements intermittent renewables

✅ Enhances grid reliability and national energy security

✅ Requires long-term investment, safety, and waste management

In recent months, France has showcased the critical role that nuclear power plants can play in an energy transition, offering valuable lessons for Germany and other countries grappling with their own energy challenges. As Europe continues to navigate its path towards a sustainable and reliable energy system, France's experience with nuclear energy underscores its potential benefits and the complexities involved, including outage risks in France that operators must manage effectively.

France, a long-time proponent of nuclear energy, generates about 70% of its electricity from nuclear power, making it one of the most nuclear-dependent countries in the world. This high reliance on nuclear energy has allowed France to maintain a stable and low-carbon electricity supply, which is increasingly significant as nations aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, even as Europe's nuclear capacity declines in several markets, and combat climate change.

Recent events in France have highlighted several key aspects of nuclear power's role in energy transition:

1. Reliability and Stability: During periods of high renewable energy generation or extreme weather events, nuclear power plants have proven to be a stable and reliable source of electricity. Unlike solar and wind power, which are intermittent and depend on weather conditions, nuclear plants provide a consistent and continuous supply of power. This stability is crucial for maintaining grid reliability and ensuring that energy demand is met even when renewable sources are not producing electricity.

2. Low Carbon Footprint: France’s commitment to nuclear energy has significantly contributed to its low carbon emissions. By relying heavily on nuclear power, France has managed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions substantially compared to many other countries. This achievement is particularly relevant as Europe strives to meet ambitious climate targets, with debates over a nuclear option in Germany highlighting climate trade-offs, and reduce overall carbon footprints. The low emissions associated with nuclear power make it an important tool for achieving climate goals and transitioning away from fossil fuels.

3. Energy Security: Nuclear power has played a vital role in France's energy security. The country’s extensive network of nuclear power plants ensures a stable and secure supply of electricity, reducing its dependency on imported energy sources. This energy security is particularly important in the context of global energy market fluctuations and geopolitical uncertainties. France’s experience demonstrates how nuclear energy can contribute to a nation’s energy independence and resilience.

4. Economic Benefits: The nuclear industry in France also provides significant economic benefits. It supports thousands of jobs in construction, operation, and maintenance of power plants, as well as in the supply chain for nuclear fuel and waste management. Additionally, the stable and relatively low cost of nuclear-generated electricity can contribute to lower energy prices for consumers and businesses, enhancing economic stability.

Germany, in contrast, has been moving away from nuclear energy, particularly following the Fukushima disaster in 2011. The country has committed to phasing out its nuclear reactors by 2022 and focusing on expanding renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. While Germany's renewable energy transition has made significant strides, it has also faced challenges related to grid stability, as Germany's energy balancing act illustrates for policymakers, energy storage, and maintaining reliable power supplies during periods of low renewable generation.

France’s experience with nuclear energy offers several lessons for Germany and other nations considering their own energy strategies:

• Balanced Energy Mix: A diverse energy mix that includes nuclear power alongside renewable sources can help ensure a stable and reliable electricity supply, as ongoing discussions about a nuclear resurgence in Germany emphasize for policymakers today. While renewable energy is essential for reducing carbon emissions, it can be intermittent and may require backup from other sources to maintain grid reliability. Nuclear power can complement renewable energy by providing a steady and consistent supply of electricity.

• Investment in Infrastructure: To maximize the benefits of nuclear energy, investment in infrastructure is crucial. This includes not only the construction and maintenance of power plants but also the development of waste management systems and safety protocols. France’s experience demonstrates the importance of long-term planning and investment to ensure the safe and effective use of nuclear technology.

• Public Perception and Policy: Public perception of nuclear energy can significantly impact its adoption and deployment, and ongoing Franco-German nuclear disputes show how politics shape outcomes across borders. Transparent communication, rigorous safety standards, and effective waste management are essential for addressing public concerns and building trust in nuclear technology. France’s successful use of nuclear power is partly due to its emphasis on safety and regulatory compliance.

In conclusion, France's experience with nuclear power provides valuable insights into the role that this technology can play in an energy transition. By offering a stable, low-carbon, and reliable source of electricity, nuclear power complements renewable energy sources and supports overall energy security. As Germany and other countries navigate their energy transitions, France's example underscores the importance of a balanced energy mix, robust infrastructure, and effective public engagement in harnessing the benefits of nuclear power while addressing associated challenges, with industry voices such as Eon boss on nuclear debate underscoring the sensitivity of cross-border critiques.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News