Experts Question Quebec's Push for EV Dominance

ERCOT Texas Fall Grid Forecast outlines ample power supply, planned maintenance outages, and grid reliability, citing PUC oversight and Gov. Abbott's remarks, with seasonal assessment noting mild demand yet climate risks and conservation alerts.

Key Points

ERCOT's seasonal outlook for Texas on fall power supply, outages, and reliability expectations under PUC oversight.

✅ Projects sufficient supply in October and November

✅ Many plants scheduled offline for maintenance

✅ Notes PUC oversight and Abbott's confidence

Gov. Greg Abbott said Tuesday that the Texas power grid is prepared for the fall months and referenced a new seasonal forecast by the state’s grid operator, which typically does not draw much attention to its fall and spring grid assessments because of the more mild temperatures during those seasons.

Tuesday’s new forecast by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas showed that there should be plenty of power supply to meet demand in October and November. It also showed that many Texas power plants are scheduled to be offline this fall for maintenance work. Texas power plants usually plan to go down in the fall and spring for repairs to improve reliability ahead of the more extreme temperatures in winter and summer, when Texans crank up their heat and air conditioning and raise demand for power.

ERCOT for at least a decade announced its seasonal forecasts, but did not do so on Tuesday. The grid operator stopped announcing the reports after the 2021 winter storm event. A spokesperson for the grid operator, which posted the report to its website midday without notifying the public or power industry stakeholders, said there were no plans to discuss the latest forecast and referred questions about it to the Public Utility Commission, which oversees ERCOT. Abbott appoints the board of the PUC.

Abbott on Tuesday expressed his confidence about the grid in a news release, which included photos of the governor sitting at a table with incoming ERCOT CEO Pablo Vegas, outgoing interim CEO Brad Jones and Public Utility Commission Chair Peter Lake.

“The State of Texas continues to monitor the reliability of our electric grid, and I thank ERCOT and PUC for their hard work to implement bipartisan reforms we passed last year and for their proactive leadership to ensure our grid is stronger than ever before,” Abbott said in the release.

Abbott has not previously shared or called attention to ERCOT’s forecasts as he did on Tuesday.

Up for reelection this fall, Abbott has faced continued criticism, including from the Sierra Club over his handling of the 2021 deadly power grid disaster, when extended freezing temperatures shut down natural gas facilities and power plants, which rely on each other to keep electricity flowing. The resulting blackouts left millions of Texans without power for days in the cold, and hundreds of people died.

ERCOT’s forecasts for fall and spring are typically the least worrisome seasonal forecasts, energy experts said, because temperatures are usually milder in between summer and winter, even as ERCOT has issued an RFP to procure winter capacity to address shortages, so demand for power usually does not skyrocket like it does during extreme temperatures.

But they’ve warned that climate change could potentially lead to more extreme temperatures during times when Texas hasn’t experienced such weather in the past. For example, in early May six power plants unexpectedly broke down when a spring heat wave drove power demand up and highlighted broader heat-related blackout risks across the grid. ERCOT asked Texans to conserve electricity at home at the time.

Abbott released the seasonal report at a time when he has asserted unprecedented control over ERCOT. Although he had no formal role in ERCOT’s search for a new permanent CEO, he put a stranglehold on the process, The Texas Tribune previously reported. Since the winter storm, Abbott’s office has also dictated what information about the power grid ERCOT has released to the public.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. Natural Gas Power Demand is surging for electricity generation amid summer heat, with ERCOT, Texas grid reserves tight, EIA reporting coal and nuclear retirements, renewables intermittency, and pipeline expansions supporting combined-cycle capacity and prices.

Key Points

It is rising use of natural gas for power, driven by summer heat, plant retirements, and new combined-cycle capacity.

✅ ERCOT reserve margin 9%, below 14% target in Texas

✅ Gas share of U.S. power near 40-43% this summer

✅ Coal and nuclear retirements shift capacity to combined cycle

As the hot months linger, it will be natural gas that is leaned on most to supply the electricity that we need to run our air conditioning loads on the grid and keep us cool.

And this is surely a great and important thing: "Heat causes most weather-related deaths, National Weather Service says."

Generally, U.S. gas demand for power in summer is 35-40% higher than what it was five years ago, with so much more coming (see Figure).

The good news is regions across the country are expected to have plenty of reserves to keep up with power demand.

The only exception is ERCOT, covering 90% of the electric load in Texas, where a 9% reserve margin is expected, below the desired 14%.

Last summer, however, ERCOT’s reserve margin also was below the desired level, yet the grid operator maintained system reliability with no load curtailments.

Simply put, other states are very lucky that Texas has been able to maintain gas at 50% of its generation, despite being more than justified to drastically increase that.

At about 1,600 Bcf per year, the flatness of gas for power demand in Texas since 2000 has been truly remarkable, especially since Lone Star State production is up 50% since then.

Increasingly, other U.S. states (and even countries) are wanting to import huge amounts of gas from Texas, a state that yields over 25% of all U.S. output.

Yet if Texas justifiably ever wants to utilize more of its own gas, others would be significantly impacted.

At ~480 TWh per year, if Texas was a country, it would be 9th globally for power use, even ahead of Brazil, a fast growing economy with 212 million people, and France, a developed economy with 68 million people.

In the near-term, this explains why a sweltering prolonged heat wave in July in Texas, with a hot Houston summer setting new electricity records, is the critical factor that could push up still very low gas prices.

But for California, our second highest gas using state, above-average snowpack should provide a stronger hydropower for this summer season relative to 2018.

Combined, Texas and California consume about 25% of U.S. gas, with Texas' use double that of California.

Across the U.S., gas could supply a record 40-43% of U.S. electricity this summer even as the EIA expects solar and wind to be larger sources of generation across the mix

Our gas used for power has increased 35-40% over the past five years, and January power generation also jumped on the year, highlighting broad momentum.

Our gas used for power has increased 35-40% over the past five years. DATA SOURCE: EIA; JTC

Indeed, U.S. natural gas for electricity has continued to soar, even as overall electricity consumption has trended lower in some years, at nearly 10,700 Bcf last year, a 16% rise from 2017 and easily the highest ever.

Gas is expected to supply 37% of U.S. power this year, even as coal-fired generation saw a brief uptick in 2021 in EIA data, versus 27% just five years ago (see Figure).

Capacity wise, gas is sure to continue to surge its share 45% share of the U.S. power system.

"More than 60% of electric generating capacity installed in 2018 was fueled by natural gas."

We know that natural gas will continue to be the go-to power source: coal and nuclear plants are retiring, and while growing, wind and solar are too intermittent, geography limited, and transmission short to compensate like natural gas can.

"U.S. coal power capacity has fallen by a third since 2010," and last year "16 gigawatts (16,000 MW) of U.S. coal-fired power plants retired."

This year, some 2,000 MW of coal was retired in February alone, with 7,420 MW expected to be closed in 2019.

Ditto for nuclear.

Nuclear retirements this year include Pilgrim, Massachusetts’s only nuclear plant, and Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania.

This will take a combined ~1,600 MW of nuclear capacity offline.

Another 2,500 MW and 4,300 MW of nuclear are expected to be leaving the U.S. power system in 2020 and 2021, respectively.

As more nuclear plants close, EIA projects that net electricity generation from U.S. nuclear power reactors will fall by 17% by 2025.

From 2019-2025 alone, EIA expects U.S. coal capacity to plummet nearly 25% to 176,000 MW, with nuclear falling 15% to 83,000 MW.

In contrast, new combined cycle gas plants will grow capacity almost 30% to around 310,000 MW.

Lower and lower projected commodity prices for gas encourage this immense gas build-out, not to mention non-stop increases in efficiency for gas-based units.

Remember that these are official U.S. Department of Energy estimates, not coming from the industry itself.

In other words, our Department of Energy concludes that gas is the future.

Our hotter and hotter summers are therefore more and more becoming: "summers for natural gas"

Ultimately, this shows why the anti-pipeline movement is so dangerous.

"Affordable Energy Coalition Highlights Ripple Effect of Natural Gas Moratorium."

In April, President Trump signed two executive orders to promote energy infrastructure by directing federal agencies to remove bottlenecks for gas transport into the Northeast in particular, where New England oil-fired generation has spiked, and to streamline federal reviews of border-crossing pipelines and other infrastructure.

Builders, however, are not relying on outside help: all they know is that more U.S. gas demand is a constant, so more infrastructure is mandatory.

They are moving forward diligently: for example, there are now some 27 pipelines worth $33 billion already in the works in Appalachia.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Britain Electricity Demand During Lockdown is around 10 percent lower, as industrial consumers scale back. National Grid reports later morning peaks and continues balancing system frequency and voltage to maintain grid stability.

Key Points

Measured drop in UK power use, later morning peaks, and grid actions to keep frequency and voltage within safe limits.

✅ Daily demand about 10 percent lower since lockdown.

✅ Morning peak down nearly 18 percent and occurs later.

✅ National Grid balances frequency and voltage using flexible resources.

Daily electricity demand in Britain is around 10% lower than before the country went into lockdown last week due to the coronavirus outbreak, data from grid operator National Grid showed on Tuesday.

The fall is largely due to big industrial consumers using less power across sectors, the operator said.

Last week, Prime Minister Boris Johnson ordered Britons to stay at home to halt the spread of the virus, imposing curbs on everyday life without precedent in peacetime.

Morning peak demand has fallen by nearly 18% compared to before the lockdown was introduced and the normal morning peak is later than usual because the times people are getting up are later and more spread out with fewer travelling to work and school, a pattern also seen in Ottawa during closures, National Grid said.

Even though less power is needed overall, the operator still has to manage lower demand for electricity, as well as peaks, amid occasional short supply warnings from National Grid, and keep the frequency and voltage of the system at safe levels.

Last August, a blackout cut power to one million customers and caused transport chaos as almost simultaneous loss of output from two generators caused by a lightning strike caused the frequency of the system to drop below normal levels, highlighting concerns after the emergency energy plan stalled.

National Grid said it can use a number of tools to manage the frequency, such as working with flexible generators to reduce output or draw on storage providers to increase demand, and market conditions mean peak power prices have spiked at times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Site C Dam Injunction signals Ottawa's neutrality while B.C. reviews a hydroelectric dam project on the Peace River, amid First Nations treaty rights claims, federal approval defenses, and scrutiny of environmental assessment and Crown consultation.

Key Points

A legal request to pause Site C while courts weigh First Nations treaty rights, environmental review, and approvals.

✅ Ottawa neutral on injunction; still defends federal approvals

✅ First Nations cite treaty rights over Peace River territory

✅ B.C. jurisdiction, environmental assessment and Crown consultation at issue

The federal government is not going to argue against halting construction of the controversial Site C hydroelectric dam in British Columbia while a B.C. court decides if the project violates constitutionally protected treaty rights.

Work on Site C suspended prior to First Nations lawsuit

However a spokeswoman for Environment Minister Catherine McKenna said Monday the government will continue to defend the federal approval given for the project in December 2014, even though that approval was given using an environmental review process McKenna herself has said is fundamentally flawed.

The Site C project is an 1,100-megawatt dam and generating station on the Peace River in northern B.C. that will flood parts of the traditional territory of the West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations.

#google#

In January, they filed a civil court case against the provincial government, B.C. Hydro and the federal government asking a judge to decide if their rights were being violated by the dam. A few weeks later, West Moberly asked the court for an injunction to halt construction pending the outcome of the rights case, similar to other contested transmission projects like the Maine electricity corridor debate in New England.

On May 11, lawyers for Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould filed a notice that Canada would remain neutral on the question of the injunction, meaning Canada won't argue against the idea of postponing construction for months, if not years, while the rights case winds through the court.

Wilson-Raybould has been silent on Site C since being named Canada's minister of justice in 2015, but in 2012, when she was the B.C. regional chief for the Assembly of First Nations, she said the project was "running roughshod" over treaty rights. The Justice Department on Monday directed questions to Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Defence of environmental assessment

McKenna's spokeswoman, Caroline Theriault, said the injunction request is just a procedural step regarding construction and that it is B.C. jurisdiction not federal.

However, she said Canada will defend the environmental assessment and Crown consultation processes and the federally issued permits required for construction.

B.C. auditor general set to scrutinize Site C dam project

McKenna has legislation before the House of Commons to overhaul the process for environmental assessment of major projects like hydro dams and pipelines, arguing the former government's procedures had skewed too far towards proponents. The overhaul includes requiring traditional Indigenous knowledge be taken into account, a consideration also central to the Columbia River Treaty talks underway on both sides of the border.

However, Theriault said the commitment to overhaul the process also included a promise not to revisit projects that had already been approved, such as Site C.

"The federal environmental assessment process for the Site C project has already been upheld in other court actions," said Theriault.

'It feels kind of odd'

West Moberly Chief Roland Wilson said he was both excited and yet concerned by Canada's decision last week not to oppose the injunction.

"It feels kind of odd and makes me wonder what they're up to," Wilson said.

However he said all he has ever wanted was for the project to be stopped until the question of rights can be answered. Wilson said two previous dams on the Peace River already flooded 80 per cent of the functional land within West Moberly's territory and that Site C will flood half of what's left. That land is used for fishing and hunting and there is also concern the dam will allow mercury to leak into Moberly Lake, he said.

Retiree undaunted by steep odds against his petition to stop Site C dam

Construction began in 2015 and more than $2.4 billion has already been spent on a project that will at the earliest, not be completed until 2024 and will cost an estimated $10 billion total, with cost overrun risks underscored by the Muskrat Falls ratepayer agreement in Atlantic Canada.

The province continues to argue against the injunction and will also fight the rights case, even as Alberta suspends power purchase talks with B.C. over energy disputes. Premier John Horgan campaigned on a promise to review the Site C approval. A B.C. Utilities Commission report in November found there are alternatives to building it and that it will go over budget. Nevertheless Horgan in December said he had to let construction continue because cancelling the project would be too costly both for the province and its electricity consumers, despite the B.C. rate freeze announced around the same period.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Nuclear Energy Growth accelerates as nations pursue decarbonization, complement renewables, displace coal, and ensure grid reliability with firm, low-carbon baseload, benefiting from standardized builds, lower cost of capital, and learning-curve cost reductions.

Key Points

Expansion of nuclear capacity to cut CO2, complement renewables, replace coal, and stabilize grids at low-carbon cost.

✅ Complements renewables; displaces coal for faster decarbonization

✅ Cuts system costs via standardization and lower cost of capital

✅ Provides firm, low-carbon baseload and grid reliability

By Kirill Komarov, Chairman, World Nuclear Association.

As Europe and the wider world begins to wake up to the need to cut emissions, Dr Kirill Komarov argues that tackling climate change will see the use of nuclear energy grow in the coming years, not as a competitor to renewables but as a competitor to coal.

The nuclear industry keeps making headlines and spurring debates on energy policy, including the green industrial revolution agenda in several countries. With each new build project, the detractors of nuclear power crowd the bandwagon to portray renewables as an easy and cheap alternative to ‘increasingly costly’ nuclear: if solar and wind are virtually free why bother splitting atoms?

Yet, paradoxically as it may seem, if we are serious about policy response to climate change, nuclear energy is seeing an atomic energy resurgence in the coming decade or two.

Growth has already started to pick up with about 3.1 GW new capacity added in the first half of 2018 in Russia and China while, at the very least, 4GW more to be completed by the end of the year – more than doubling the capacity additions in 2017.

In 2019 new connections to the grid would exceed 10GW by a significant margin.

If nuclear is in decline, why then do China, India, Russia and other countries keep building nuclear power plants?

To begin with, the issue of cost, argued by those opposed to nuclear, is in fact largely a bogus one, which does not make a fully rounded like for like comparison.

It is true that the latest generation reactors, especially those under construction in the US and Western Europe, have encountered significant construction delays and cost overruns.

But the main, and often the only, reason for that is the ‘first-of-a-kind’ nature of those projects.

If you build something for the first time, be it nuclear, wind or solar, it is expensive. Experience shows that with series build, standardised construction economies of scale and the learning curve from multiple projects, costs come down by around one-third; and this is exactly what is already happening in some parts of the world.

Furthermore, those first-of-a-kind projects were forced to be financed 100% privately and investors had to bear all political risks. It sent the cost of capital soaring, increasing at one stroke the final electricity price by about one third.

While, according to the International Energy Agency, at 3% cost of capital rate, nuclear is the cheapest source of energy: on average 1% increase adds about US$6-7 per MWh to the final price.

When it comes to solar and wind, the truth, inconvenient for those cherishing the fantasy of a world relying 100% on renewables, is that the ‘plummeting prices’ (which, by the way, haven’t changed much over the last three years, reaching a plateau) do not factor in so-called system and balancing costs associated with the need to smooth the intermittency of renewables.

Put simply, the fact the sun doesn’t shine at night and wind doesn’t blow all the time means wind and solar generation needs to be backed up.

According to a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, integration of intermittent renewables into the grid is estimated in some cases to be as expensive as power generation itself.

Delivering the highest possible renewable content means customers’ bills will have to cover: renewable generation costs, energy storage solutions, major grid updates and interconnections investment, as well as gas or coal peaking power plants or ‘peakers’, which work only from time to time when needed to back up wind and solar.

The expected cost for kWh for peakers, according to investment bank Lazard is about twice that of conventional power plants due to much lower capacity factors.

Despite exceptionally low fossil fuel prices, peaking natural gas generation had an eye-watering cost of $156-210 per MWh in 2017 while electricity storage, replacing ‘peakers’, would imply an extra cost of $186-413 per MWh.

Burning fossil fuels is cheaper but comes with a great deal of environmental concern and extensive use of coal would make net-zero emissions targets all but unattainable.

So, contrary to some claims, nuclear does not compete with renewables. Moreover, a recent study by the MIT Energy Initiative showed, most convincingly, that renewables and load following advanced nuclear are complementary.

Nuclear competes with coal. Phasing out coal is crucial to fighting climate change. Putting off decisions to build new nuclear capacities while increasing the share of intermittent renewables makes coal indispensable and extends its life.

Scientists at the Brattle group, a consultancy, argue that “since CO2 emissions persist for many years in the atmosphere, near-term emission reductions are more helpful for climate protection than later ones”.

The longer we hesitate with new nuclear build the more difficult it becomes to save the Earth.

Nuclear power accounta for about one-tenth of global electricity production, but as much as one-third of generation from low-carbon sources. 1GWe of installed nuclear capacity prevents emissions of 4-7 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year, depending on the region.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that in order to limit the average global temperature increase to 2°C and still meet global power demand, we need to connect to the grid at least 20GW of new nuclear energy each year.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) sets the target even higher with the total of 1,000 GWe by 2050, or about 10 GWe per year before 2020; 25 GWe per year from 2021 to 2025; and on average 33 GWe from 2026 to 2050.

Regulatory and political challenges in the West have made life for nuclear businesses in the US and in Europe's nuclear sector very difficult, driving many of them to the edge of insolvency; but in the rest of the world nuclear energy is thriving.

Nuclear vendors and utilities post healthy profits and invest heavily in next-gen nuclear innovation and expansion. The BRICS countries are leading the way, taking over the initiative in the global climate agenda. From their perspective, it’s the opposite of decline.

Dr Kirill Komarov is first deputy CEO of Russian state nuclear energy operator Rosatom and chairman of the World Nuclear Association.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out reflects a decisive energy policy shift, retiring reactors as firms shun new builds amid high costs, radioactive waste challenges, climate goals, insurance gaps, and debate over small modular reactors and subsidies.

Key Points

Germany's policy to end nuclear plants and block new builds, emphasizing safety, waste, climate goals, and viability.

✅ Driven by safety risks, waste storage limits, and insurance gaps

✅ High capital costs and subsidies make new reactors uneconomic

✅ Political debate persists; SMRs raise cost and proliferation concerns

A year has passed since Germany deactivated its last three nuclear power plants, marking a significant shift in its energy policy.

Nuclear fission once heralded as the future of energy in Germany during the 1960s, was initially embraced with minimal concern for the potential risks of nuclear accidents. As Heinz Smital from Greenpeace recalls, the early optimism was partly driven by national interest in nuclear weapon technology rather than energy companies' initiatives.

Jochen Flasbarth, State Secretary in the Ministry of Development, reflects on that era, noting Germany's strong, almost naive, belief in technology. Germany, particularly the Ruhr region, grappled with smog-filled skies at that time due to heavy industrialization and coal-fired power plants. Nuclear energy presented a "clean" alternative at the time.

This sentiment was also prevalent in East Germany, where the first commercial nuclear power plant came online in 1961. In total, 37 nuclear reactors were activated across Germany, reflecting a widespread confidence in nuclear technology.

However, the 1970s saw a shift in attitudes. Environmental activists protested the construction of new power plants, symbolizing a generational rift. The 1979 Three Mile Island incident in the US, followed by the catastrophic Chornobyl disaster in 1986, further eroded public trust in nuclear energy.

The Chornobyl accident, in particular, significantly dampened Germany's nuclear ambitions, according to Smital. Post-Chernobyl, plans for additional nuclear power plants in Germany, once numbering 60, drastically declined.

The emergence of the Green Party in 1980, rooted in anti-nuclear sentiment, and its subsequent rise to political prominence further influenced Germany's energy policy. The Greens, joining forces with the Social Democrats in 1998, initiated a move away from nuclear energy, facing opposition from the Christian Democrats (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU).

However, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 prompted a policy reversal from CDU and CSU under Chancellor Angela Merkel, leading to Germany's eventual nuclear phase-out in March 2023, after briefly extending nuclear power amid the energy crisis.

Recently, the CDU and CSU have revised their stance once more, signaling a potential U-turn on the nuclear phaseout, advocating for new nuclear reactors and the reactivation of the last shut-down plants, citing climate protection and rising fossil fuel costs. CDU leader Friedrich Merz has lamented the shutdown as a "black day for Germany." However, these suggestions have garnered little enthusiasm from German energy companies.

Steffi Lemke, the Federal Environment Minister, isn't surprised by the companies' reluctance, noting their longstanding opposition to nuclear power, which she argues would do little to solve the gas issue in Germany, due to its high-risk nature and the long-term challenge of radioactive waste management.

Globally, 412 reactors are operational across 32 countries, even as Europe is losing nuclear power during an energy crunch, with the total number remaining relatively stable over the years. While countries like China, France, and the UK plan new constructions, there's a growing interest in small, modern reactors, which Smital of Greenpeace views with skepticism, noting their potential military applications.

In Germany, the unresolved issue of nuclear waste storage looms large. With temporary storage facilities near power plants proving inadequate for long-term needs, the search for permanent sites faces resistance from local communities and poses financial and logistical challenges.

Environment Minister Lemke underscores the economic impracticality of nuclear energy in Germany, citing prohibitive costs and the necessity of substantial subsidies and insurance exemptions.

As things stand, the resurgence of nuclear power in Germany appears unlikely, with economic factors playing a decisive role in its future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News