Electric Utilities Plot Bullish Course for EV Charging Infrastructure

FERC Rejects Trump Coal Plan, denying subsidies for coal-fired and nuclear plants as energy policy shifts toward natural gas and renewables, citing no grid reliability threat and warning about electricity prices and market impacts.

Key Points

FERC unanimously rejected subsidies for coal and nuclear plants, finding no grid reliability risk from retirements.

✅ Unanimous FERC vote rejects coal and nuclear compensation

✅ Cites no threat to grid reliability from plant retirements

✅ Opponents warned subsidies would distort power markets and prices

A decision by an independent energy agency to reject the Trump administration’s electricity pricing plan to bolster the coal industry could lead to more closures of coal-fired power plants and the loss of thousands of jobs, a top coal executive said Tuesday.

Robert Murray, CEO of Ohio-based Murray Energy Corp., called the action by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission “a bureaucratic cop-out” that will raise the cost of electricity and jeopardize the reliability and security of the nation’s electric grid.

“While FERC commissioners sit on their hands and refuse to take the action directed by Energy Secretary Rick Perry and President Donald Trump, the decommissioning of more coal-fired and nuclear plants could result, further jeopardizing the reliability, resiliency and security of America’s electric power grids,” Murray said. “It will also raise the cost of electricity for all Americans.”

The five-member energy commission voted unanimously Monday to reject Trump’s plan to reward nuclear and coal-fired power plants for adding reliability to the nation’s power grid. The plan would have made the plants eligible for billions of dollars in government subsidies and help reverse a tide of bankruptcies and loss of market share suffered by the once-dominant coal industry as utilities' shift to natural gas and renewable energy continues.

The Republican-controlled commission said there’s no evidence that any past or planned retirements of coal-fired power plants pose a threat to reliability of the nation’s electric grid.

Murray disputed that and said the recent cold snap that hit the East Coast showed coal’s value, as power users in the Southeast were asked to cut back on electricity usage because of a shortage of natural gas. “If it were not for the electricity generated by our nation’s coal-fired and nuclear power plants, we would be experiencing massive brownouts risk and blackouts in this country,” he said.

Murray Energy is the largest privately owned coal company in the United States, with mining operations in Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Utah and West Virginia. Robert Murray, a Trump friend and political supporter, has been pushing hard for federal assistance for his industry. The Associated Press reported last year that Murray asked the Trump administration to issue an emergency order protecting coal-fired power plants from closing. Murray warned that failure to act could cause thousands of coal miners to be laid off and force his largest customer, Ohio-based FirstEnergy Solutions, into bankruptcy.

Perry ultimately rejected Murray’s request, but later asked energy regulators to boost coal and nuclear plants as the administration moved to replace the Clean Power Plan with a more limited approach.

The plan drew widespread opposition from business and environmental groups that frequently disagree with each other, even as some coal and business interests backed the EPA's Affordable Clean Energy rule in court.

Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, said Tuesday that the Trump plan was “far too narrow” in its focus on power sources that maintain a 90-day fuel supply.

API, the largest lobbying group for oil and gas industry, supports coal and other energy sources, Gerard said, “but we should not put our eggs in an individual basket defined as a 90-day fuel supply (while) unnecessarily intervening in private markets.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Maine Climate Council Act targets 80% renewable power by 2030 and 100% by 2050, slashing greenhouse gas emissions via clean electricity, grid procurement, long-term contracts, wind and hydro integration, resilience planning, and carbon sequestration.

Key Points

A Maine policy forming a Climate Council to reach 80% renewables in 2030 100% in 2050 and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

✅ 80% renewable electricity by 2030; 100% by 2050.

✅ 45% GHG cut by 2030; 80% by 2050.

✅ Utility procurement authority for clean capacity and energy.

The winds of change have shifted and are blowing Northward, as Maine’s Governor, Janet T. Mills, has put forth an act establishing a Climate Council to guide the state’s consumption to 80% renewable electricity in 2030 and 100% by 2050, echoing New York's Green New Deal ambitions underway.

The act, LR 2478 (pdf), also sets a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 45% in 2030 and 80% by 2050. The document will be submitted to the state Legislature for consideration.

The commission would have the authority to direct investor owned transmission and distribution utilities to run competitive procurement processes, and enter into long-term contracts for capacity resources, energy resources, renewable energy credit contracts, and participate in regional programs, as these all lead toward the clean electricity and emissions-reducing goals that mirror California's 100% mandate debates today.

The Climate Council would convene industry working groups, including Scientific and Technical, Transportation, Coastal and Marine, Energy, and Building & Infrastructure working groups, plus others as needed, where examples like New Zealand's electricity transition could inform discussions.

Membership within the council would include two members of the State Senate, two members of the House, a tribal representative, many department commissioners (Education, Defense, Transportation, etc.), multiple directors, business representatives, environmental non-profit members, and climate science and resilience representatives as well.

The council would update the Maine State Climate Plan every four years, and solicit input from the public and report out progress on its goals every two years, similar to planning underway in Minnesota's carbon-free plan framework. The first Climate Action Plan would be submitted to the legislature by December 1, 2020.

Specifically, the responsibilities of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee were laid out. The group would be scheduled to meet at least every six months, beginning no later than October 1, 2019. The group would be tasked with reviewing existing scientific literature, including net-zero electricity pathways research, to use it as guidance, recognizing gaps in the state’s knowledge, and guiding outside experts to ascertain this knowledge.  The group would consider ocean acidification, and climate change effects on the state’s species; establish science-based sea-level rise projections for the state’s coastal regions by December 1, 2020; create a climate risk map for flooding and extreme weather events; and consider carbon sequestration via biomass growth.

The state’s largest power plants (above image), generate about 31% from gas, 28% from wood and 41% from hydro+wind. Already, the state has a very clean electricity profile, much like efforts to decarbonize Canada's power sector continue apace. Below, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) notes that 51% of electricity generation within the state comes from mostly wind+hydro, with a small touch from solar power. The state also gets 24% from wood and other biomass, which would lead some to argue that the state is already at 75% “renewable electricity”. The Governor’s document does reference wind power specifically as a renewable, however, no other specific electricity source. And there is much reference to forestry, agriculture, and logging – specifically noting carbon sequestration – but nothing regarding electricity.

The state’s final 25% of electricity mostly comes from natural gas, even as renewable electricity momentum builds across North America, with this author choosing to put “other” under the fossil percentage noted above.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Southeast Electricity Demand Forecast examines how energy efficiency, photovoltaics, electric vehicles, heat pumps, and demand response shape grid needs, stabilize load through 2030, shift peaks, and inform utility planning across the region.

Key Points

An outlook of load shaped by efficiency, solar, EVs, with demand response keeping usage steady through 2030.

✅ Stabilizes regional demand through 2030 under accelerated adoption

✅ Energy efficiency and demand response are primary levers

✅ EVs and heat pumps drive growth post 2030; shift winter peaks

Electricity markets in the Southeast are facing many changes on the customer side of the meter. In a new report released today, we look at how energy efficiency, photovoltaics (solar electricity), electric vehicles, heat pumps, and demand response (shifting loads from periods of high demand) might affect electricity needs in the Southeast.

We find that if all of these resources are pursued on an accelerated basis, electricity demand in the region can be stabilized until about 2030.

After that, demand will likely grow in the following decade because of increased market penetration of electric vehicles and heat pumps, but energy planners will have time to deal with this growth if these projections are borne out. We also find that energy efficiency and demand response can be vital for managing electricity supply and demand in the region and that these resources can help contain energy demand growth, reducing the impact of expensive new generation on consumer wallets.

National trends

This is the second ACEEE report looking at regional electricity demand. In 2016, we published a study on electricity consumption in New England, finding an even more pronounced effect. For New England, with even more aggressive pursuit of energy efficiency and these other resources, consumption was projected to decline through about 2030, before rebounding in the following decade.

These regional trends fit into a broader national pattern. In the United States, electricity consumption has been characterized by flat electricity demand for the past decade. Increased energy efficiency efforts have contributed to this lack of consumption growth, even as the US economy has grown since the Great Recession. Recently, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA – a branch of the US Department of Energy) released data on US electricity consumption in 2016, finding that 2016 consumption was 0.3% below 2015 consumption, and other analysts reported a 1% slide in 2023 on milder weather.

Five scenarios for the Southeast

ACEEE’s new study focuses on the Southeast because it is very different from New England, with warmer weather, more economic growth, and less-aggressive energy efficiency and distributed energy policies than the Northeast. For the Southeast, we examined five scenarios: a business-as-usual scenario; two alternative scenarios with progressively higher levels of energy efficiency, photovoltaics informed by a solar strategy for the South that is emerging regionally, electric vehicles, heat pumps, and demand response; and two scenarios combining high numbers of electric vehicles and heat pumps with more modest levels of the other resources. This figure presents electricity demand for each of these scenarios:

Over the 2016-2040 period, we project that average annual growth will range from 0.1% to 1.0%, depending on the scenario, much slower than historic growth in the region. Energy efficiency is generally the biggest contributor to changes in projected 2040 electricity consumption relative to the business-as-usual scenario, as shown in the figure below, which presents our accelerated scenario that is based on levels of energy efficiency and other resources now targeted by leading states and utilities in the Southeast.

To date, Entergy Arkansas has achieved the annual efficiency savings as a percent of sales shown in the accelerated scenario and Progress Energy (a division of Duke Energy) has nearly achieved those savings in both North and South Carolina. Sixteen states outside the Southeast have also achieved these savings statewide.

The efficiency savings shown in the aggressive scenario have been proposed by the Arkansas PSC. This level of savings has already been achieved by Arizona as well as six other states. Likewise, the demand response savings we model have been achieved by more than 10 utilities, including four in the Southeast. The levels of photovoltaic, electric vehicle, and heat pump penetration are more speculative and are subject to significant uncertainty.

We also examined trends in summer and winter peak demand. Most utilities in the Southeast have historically had peak demand in the summer, often seeing heatwave-driven surges that stress operations across the Eastern U.S., but our analysis shows that winter peaks will be more likely in the region as photovoltaics and demand response reduce summer peaks and heat pumps increase winter peaks.

Why it’s vital to plan broadly

Our analysis illustrates the importance of incorporating energy efficiency, demand response, and photovoltaics into utility planning forecasts as utility trends to watch continue to evolve. Failing to include these resources leads to much higher forecasts, resulting in excess utility system investments, unnecessarily increasing customer electricity rates. Our analysis also illustrates the importance of including electric vehicles and heat pumps in long-term forecasts. While these technologies will have moderate impacts over the next 10 years, they could become increasingly important in the long run.

We are entering a dynamic period of substantial uncertainty for long-term electricity sales and system peaks, highlighted by COVID-19 demand shifts that upended typical patterns. We need to carefully observe and analyze developments in energy efficiency, photovoltaics, electric vehicles, heat pumps, and demand response over the next few years. As these technologies advance, we can create policies to reduce energy bills, system costs, and harmful emissions, drawing on grid reliability strategies tested in Texas, while growing the Southeast’s economy. Resource planners should be sure to incorporate these emerging trends and policies into their long-term forecasts and planning.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Philippines Renewable Energy Mini-Grids address rising electricity demand, rolling blackouts, off-grid electrification, and decentralized power in an archipelago, leveraging solar, wind, and hybrid systems to close the generation capacity gap and expand household access.

Key Points

Decentralized solar, wind, and hybrid systems powering off-grid areas to relieve shortages and expand access.

✅ Targets 2.3M unelectrified homes with reliable clean power

✅ Mitigates rolling blackouts via modular mini-grid deployments

✅ Supports energy access, resilience, and grid decentralization

The reason why IRENA made its study in the Philippines is because of the country’s demand for electricity is on a steady rise while the generating capacity lags behind. To provide households the electricity, the government is constrained to implement rolling blackouts in some regions. By 2030, the demand for electricity is projected to reach 30 million kilowatts as compared to 17 million kilowatts which is its current generating capacity.

One of the country’s biggest conglomerations, San Miguel Corporation is accountable for almost 20% of power output. It has power plants that has a 900,000-kW generation capacity. Another corporation in the energy sector, Aboitiz Power, has augmented its facilities as well to keep up with the demand. As a matter fact, even foreign players such as Tokyo Electric Power and Marubeni, as a result of the gradual privatization of the power industry which started in 2001, have built power plants in the country, a challenge mirrored in other regions where electricity for all demands greater investment, yet the power supply remains short.

And so, the IRENA came up with the study entitled “Accelerating the Deployment of Renewable Energy Mini-Grids for Off-Grid Electrification – A Study on the Philippines” to provide a clearer picture of what the current state of the crisis is and lay out possible solutions. It showed that as of 2016, a record year for renewables worldwide, the Philippines has approximately 2.3 million households without electricity. With only 89.6 percent of household electrification, that leaves about 2.36 million homes either with limited power of four to six hours each day or totally without electricity.

By the end of 2017, the Philippine government will have provided 90% of Philippine households with electricity. It is worth mentioning that in 2014, the National Capital Region together with two other regions had received 90 percent electrification. However, some areas are still unable to access power that’s within or above the national average. IRENA’s study has become a source of valuable information and analysis to the Philippines’ power systems and identified ways on how to surmount the challenges involving power systems decentralization, with renewable energy funding supporting those mini-grids which are either powered in parts or in full by renewable energy resources. This, however, does not discount the fact that providing electricity in every household still is an on-going struggle. Considering that the Philippines is an archipelago, providing enough, dependable, and clean modern energy to the entire country, including the remote and isolated islands is difficult. The onset of renewable energy is a viable and cost-effective option to support the implementation of mini-grids, as shown by Ireland's green electricity targets rising rapidly.

 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

PG&E property tax payments bolster counties, education, public safety, and infrastructure across Northern and Central California, reflecting semi-annual levies tied to utility assets, capital investments, and economic development that serve 16 million customers.

Key Points

PG&E property tax payments are semi-annual county taxes funding public services and linked to utility infrastructure.

✅ $230M paid for Jul-Dec 2017 across 50 California counties

✅ Estimated $461M for FY 2017-2018, up 12% year over year

✅ Investments: $5.9B in grid, Gas Safety Academy, control center

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) paid property taxes of more than $230 million this fall to the 50 counties where the energy company owns property and operates gas and electric infrastructure that serves 16 million Californians. The tax payments help support essential public services like education and public health and safety actions across the region.

The semi-annual property tax payments made today cover the period from July 1 to December 31, 2017.

Total payments for the full tax year of July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 are estimated to total more than $461 million—an increase of $50 million, or 12 percent, compared with the prior fiscal year, even as customer rates are expected to stabilize in the years ahead.

“Property tax payments provide crucial resources to the many communities where we live and work, supporting everything from education to public safety. By continuing to make local investments in gas and electric infrastructure, we are not only creating one of the safest and most reliable energy systems in the country, including wildfire risk reduction programs and related efforts, we’re investing in the local economy and helping our communities thrive,” said Jason Wells, senior vice president and chief financial officer for PG&E.

PG&E invested more than $5.7 billion last year and expects to invest $5.9 billion this year to enhance and upgrade its gas and electrical infrastructure amid power line fire risks across Northern and Central California.

Some recent investments include the construction of PG&E’s $75 millionGas Safety Academy in Winters in Yolo County, which opened in September. Last year, PG&E opened a $36 million, state-of-the-art electric distribution control center in Rocklin.

PG&E supports the communities it serves in a variety of ways. In 2016, PG&E provided more than $28 million in charitable contributions to enrich local educational opportunities, preserve the environment, and support economic vitality and emergency preparedness and safety, including its Wildfire Assistance Program for impacted residents. PG&E employees provide thousands of hours of volunteer service in their local communities. The company also offers a broad spectrum of economic development services to help local businesses grow.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Noncarbon Electricity Investment Strategy helps utilities hedge policy uncertainty, carbon tax risks, and emissions limits by scaling wind, solar, and CCS, avoiding stranded assets while balancing costs, reliability, and climate policy over decades.

Key Points

A strategy for utilities to invest 20-30 percent of capacity in low carbon sources to hedge emissions and carbon risks.

✅ Hedges future carbon tax and emissions limits

✅ Targets 20-30 percent of new generation from clean sources

✅ Reduces stranded asset risk and builds renewables capacity

When utility executives make decisions about building new power plants, a lot rides on their choices. Depending on their size and type, new generating facilities cost hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. They typically will run for 40 or more years — 10 U.S. presidential terms. Much can change during that time.

Today one of the biggest dilemmas that regulators and electricity industry planners face is predicting how strict future limits on greenhouse gas emissions will be. Future policies will affect the profitability of today’s investments. For example, if the United States adopts a carbon tax 10 years from now, it could make power plants that burn fossil fuels less profitable, or even insolvent.

These investment choices also affect consumers. In South Carolina, utilities were allowed to charge their customers higher rates to cover construction costs for two new nuclear reactors, which have now been abandoned because of construction delays and weak electricity demand. Looking forward, if utilities are reliant on coal plants instead of solar and wind, it will be much harder and more expensive for them to meet future emissions targets, even as New Zealand's electrification push accelerates abroad. They will pass the costs of complying with these targets on to customers in the form of higher electricity prices.

With so much uncertainty about future policy, how much should we be investing in noncarbon electricity generation in the next decade? In a recent study, we proposed optimal near-term electricity investment strategies to hedge against risks and manage inherent uncertainties about the future.

We found that for a broad range of assumptions, 20 to 30 percent of new generation in the coming decade should be from noncarbon sources such as wind and solar energy across markets. For most U.S. electricity providers, this strategy would mean increasing their investments in noncarbon power sources, regardless of the current administration’s position on climate change.

Many noncarbon electricity sources — including wind, solar, nuclear power and coal or natural gas with carbon capture and storage — are more expensive than conventional coal and natural gas plants. Even wind power, which is often mentioned as competitive, is actually more costly when accounting for costs such as backup generation and energy storage to ensure that power is available when wind output is low.

Over the past decade, federal tax incentives and state policies designed to promote clean electricity sources spurred many utilities to invest in noncarbon sources. Now the Trump administration is shifting federal policy back toward promoting fossil fuels. But it can still make economic sense for power companies to invest in more expensive noncarbon technologies if we consider the potential impact of future policies.

How much should companies invest to hedge against the possibility of future greenhouse gas limits? On one hand, if they invest too much in noncarbon generation and the federal government adopts only weak climate policies throughout the investment period, utilities will overspend on expensive energy sources.

On the other hand, if they invest too little in noncarbon generation and future administrations adopt stringent emissions targets, utilities will have to replace high-carbon energy sources with cleaner substitutes, which could be extremely costly.

Economic modeling with uncertainty

We conducted a quantitative analysis to determine how to balance these two concerns and find an optimal investment strategy given uncertainty about future emissions limits. This is a core choice that power companies have to make when they decide what kinds of plants to build.

First we developed a computational model that represents the sectors of the U.S. economy, including electric power. Then we embedded it within a computer program that evaluates decisions in the electric power sector under policy uncertainty.

The model explores different electric power investment decisions under a wide range of future emissions limits with different probabilities of being implemented. For each decision/policy combination, it computes and compares economy-wide costs over two investment periods extending from 2015 to 2030.

We looked at costs across the economy because emissions policies impose costs on consumers and producers as well as power companies. For example, they may lead to higher electricity, fuel or product prices. By seeking to minimize economy-wide costs, our model identifies the investment decision that produces the greatest overall benefits to society.

More investments in clean generation make economic sense

We found that for a broad range of assumptions, the optimal investment strategy for the coming decade is for 20 to 30 percent of new generation to be from noncarbon sources. Our model identified this as the best level because it best positions the United States to meet a wide range of possible future policies at a low cost to the economy.

From 2005-2015, we calculated that about 19 percent of the new generation that came online was from noncarbon sources. Our findings indicate that power companies should put a larger share of their money into noncarbon investments in the coming decade.

While increasing noncarbon investments from a 19 percent share to a 20 to 30 percent share of new generation may seem like a modest change, it actually requires a considerable increase in noncarbon investment dollars. This is especially true since power companies will need to replace dozens of aging coal-fired power plants that are expected to be retired.

In general, society will bear greater costs if power companies underinvest in noncarbon technologies than if they overinvest. If utilities build too much noncarbon generation but end up not needing it to meet emissions limits, they can and will still use it fully. Sunshine and wind are free, so generators can produce electricity from these sources with low operating costs.

In contrast, if the United States adopts strict emissions limits within a decade or two, they could prevent carbon-intensive generation built today from being used. Those plants would become “stranded assets” — investments that are obsolete far earlier than expected, and are a drain on the economy.

Investing early in noncarbon technologies has another benefit: It helps develop the capacity and infrastructure needed to quickly expand noncarbon generation. This would allow energy companies to comply with future emissions policies at lower costs.

Seeing beyond one president

The Trump administration is working to roll back Obama-era climate policies such as the Clean Power Plan, and to implement policies that favor fossil generation. But these initiatives should alter the optimal strategy that we have proposed for power companies only if corporate leaders expect Trump’s policies to persist over the 40 years or more that these new generating plants can be expected to run.

Energy executives would need to be extremely confident that, despite investor pressure from shareholders, the United States will adopt only weak climate policies, or none at all, into future decades in order to see cutting investments in noncarbon generation as an optimal near-term strategy. Instead, they may well expect that the United States will eventually rejoin worldwide efforts to slow the pace of climate change and adopt strict emissions limits.

In that case, they should allocate their investments so that at least 20 to 30 percent of new generation over the next decade comes from noncarbon sources. Sustaining and increasing noncarbon investments in the coming decade is not just good for the environment — it’s also a smart business strategy that is good for the economy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News