Stirring GE's Ecomagination

By CNET News.com


CSA Z463 Electrical Maintenance

Our customized live online or in‑person group training can be delivered to your staff at your location.

  • Live Online
  • 6 hours Instructor-led
  • Group Training Available
Regular Price:
$249
Coupon Price:
$199
Reserve Your Seat Today
It certainly can, according to Ecomagination, a high-profile initiative inside GE to make environmentally conscious products that still result in healthy profits.

To the public, the Ecomagination advertising and marketing campaign seems to have put a different face on GE - a conglomerate that makes everything from lightbulbs to TV shows.

But while GE's happy to tout its green credentials, its vice president of Ecomagination, Lorraine Bolsinger, is wary of "greenwashing."

Putting an eco-friendly spin on products to improve a corporate image without the goods to back it up will ultimately set the company - and its financial goals - back, according to Bolsinger, who says she welcomes feedback from environmental activists.

GE Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt tapped Bolsinger two years ago to lead GE's efforts to capitalize on global environmental problems, from climate change to fresh-water shortages. That responsibility also includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions at GE, which is a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a collection of industrial businesses lobbying for climate change regulations.

During a tour of GE's labs recently in Niskayuna, N.Y., Bolsinger spoke to CNET News.com about the birth of the Ecomagination "growth strategy," clean technologies on the drawing board, and the tension of going green in Corporate America.

Question: GE was one of the first U.S.-based companies to make a bet and say there was money to be made in cleaner technologies. What was behind the initial push?

Bolsinger: When you look at our company, it's pretty easy to understand why we would have been in the space so early on. You might say we are really smart, we're really progressive, and I'd like to think that. It's also because of the very nature of things that we make. Everything that we make, just about, uses electricity or produces electricity or some kind of energy, some kind of motive power.

Question: You're big in energy.

Bolsinger: We're big in energy, and we invest in energy, so it sort of touches everything that we do. We looked at some trends. (CEO) Jeff Immelt does something called a growth playbook every year with each of his businesses. Think of it as a strategic plan for the next three to five years and beyond.

What he heard over and over were three themes for businesses. One, we are going to see enormous (gross domestic product) growth around the world. Two, we will see a scarcity of resources - scarcity of water, scarcity of (energy) resources, and higher prices that go along with that. And the security of supply is at best questionable and, of course, we see that. And the third theme is that we're going to be living in a world where regulations are going to become more and more stringent, not just in the United States but around the world.

At some point in time, customers are going to say, "I don't want anything but an environmentally friendly product." It won't be acceptable to have something that is cheap but dirty.

So we are at a point in time when we have a group of (energy) technologies in our portfolio, and we have to respond to this. We can either wait to see what happens, or we can get out in front of it. Obviously, Immelt decided to get out in front of it, and so we launched Ecomagination.

Ecomagination is for us, above everything else, a growth strategy. It is a business strategy based on the idea that by investing in technologies to help customers solve these big megatrends that we're seeing, to help them grow sustainably in this world - where there is more regulation, more scarcity, higher energy costs - that we can grow sustainably as well. So what's good for business is good for the environment, and what's good for the environment can be good for business.

Question: Reducing your company's own greenhouse gas emissions is also part of the initiative. Why is that?

Bolsinger: That's a very important piece of this because you don't have a lot of credibility if you're out there, telling everyone else, "You ought to do it, but it's not for us." Is a very important backbone of what we do.

Question: You said you're set to top the $20 billion mark in Ecomagination revenue. Yet it's not a separate division, and you're such a diversified company. How do you count it? Is a cleaner gas turbine part of Ecomagination?

Bolsinger: Yes. In order for something to be an Ecomagination-certified product, it has to have two characteristics - not one or the other, but both. It has to be significantly and measurably better in operating performance as well as environmental performance.

If we got this great green technology, but it's totally unaffordable, we say no, that's not ready to be an ecoproduct. It has to be better, in terms of operating performance for the customer - to give them some economic return - as well as the environmental piece of it. And we use a third party to help in the certification process.

Question: Why do you work with a third party to certify what you're doing?

Bolsinger: We want our claims to be authentic and certifiable. Otherwise, you're a greenwasher. We like tough standards, and I think that one of the marks of whether a process is good or not is whether everything squeaks through. And frankly, not everything does.

I'm glad that not everything makes it through because I think we have to be stringent about this. I find that the environmental-activist community is very unforgiving - that's probably a good thing. I'm sure you know about all the news reports about greenwashing and nonverifiable claims about (carbon) offsets and carbon neutrality. I think we have to be ever-vigilant to never cross that line because it's a long way back.

Question: So if half of your product portfolio is already greener, will it all be, at some point?

Bolsinger: You know, someday, I think we'll stop counting. Don't ask when that is. Maybe when I leave this job, that'll be the day, but we continue to count because we want to be on the record, we want to make sure that we are making progress.

But I do believe that at some point in time, customers are going to say, "I don't want anything but an environmentally friendly product." It won't be acceptable to have something that is cheap but dirty. Do I think that eventually everything is going to be an ecoproduct? I do, at least from the equipment perspective.

Question: How far off is that day?

Bolsinger: I'd say certainly 10 years from now, probably sooner - probably closer to 5.

Question: We're here at your research labs. How do see technology addressing climate change?

Bolsinger: I'd say that when you look at where the world needs to be - let's say we really have to have 80 percent lower (greenhouse gas) emissions by the middle of the century, right? That's the "walking around" numbers that the scientists say.

Eighty percent is huge. So I say in the next 5 to 10 years, we're going to focus on component efficiencies. Making everything more efficient by an order of magnitude, so you might say the GE (aircraft) engine is 15 percent more efficient--that's a good one. The Evolution locomotive with 40 percent lower nitrogen oxide emissions. More efficient lighting. (The list goes on.)

All those component things are doable. I think that the next generation of technologies - say, in the next 10 to 20 years - will revolve more around systems, looking at bigger broader systems play. Because now you need to get 20, 30, 40 percent improvements. We're going to be looking at total air traffic management. Not just making the engine in the airplane a little more efficient--the whole system has to get more efficient.

And further out, it's really transformational technologies. Truly breakthroughs that we don't have on the radar screen today. Or making those breakthroughs more cost-competitive. The next-generation solar, battery technology, biofuels.

We have to work on those today if you are going to be see them 20 years from now - it takes that long to get the infrastructure in place. We're doing the research today on how to make it cost-competitive, deployable, all those things. We've got to be working on those things today if we expect it to be in any way mainstream by midcentury.

Question: How about the nonenergy parts of GE? What does Ecomagination mean to them?

Bolsinger: We have more folks wanting to create certified products than we could have imagined. It's easy to imagine the technologies that I've already talked about. The energy business already has an enormous (amount of) renewable technologies - everything from biogas turbines to gas turbines to wind and solar, integrated coal gasification. You can understand those.

The surprises for me have been the financial-services business coming to us, creating a green credit card. There's no end to this thing. I didn't think we thought about ecohomes. It just serves as a muse for how our business groups can work together - our water (purification) and energy business, for example.

Question: Has there been any skepticism at all? There are people who don't believe in global warming and climate change. Has that been a barrier at all?

Bolsinger: No, it hasn't. First of all, we took off the table the debate about climate change a long time ago.

There are fewer and fewer people who are skeptics on climate change. People who say, "I don't believe it" or "I don't see it," they kind of are outliers at this point. I think it's much more mainstream. We're past the point of debating the science.

For us, we said we're just going to take reality as it is. So whether you want to debate climate change until the cows come home doesn't matter. The world is moving in that direction. There is scarcity of resources, there is regulation coming, so let's deal with the world we have. We can keep debating. What's the point of that? The world's has moved on, and we need to keep pace with that.

I think the skepticism piece was never a big deal for me because (Ecomagination) was never based on "we're doing this for philanthropy" or "we're doing this to make the world safe." We're glad to be doing that as a result of making money. It's a different lens that informs your decisions about where to spend money and what resources you're going to invest.

Question: Has there been resistance internally? This is a big change. Has it caused conflicts?

Bolsinger: Not conflicts. I know everybody wants to tell that story that everybody was skeptical. I think the biggest concern in the very beginning was that we didn't overstate things. We didn't turn into this big green machine.

We've been around for more than 120 years. We have legacy issues. Of course we do. I think you always have to be very careful that you don't step out and try to be holier than thou. You have to do what you're good at.

So I wouldn't call it skepticism. I would call it healthy concern that we get it right. I have an eco-advisory boardÂ…. We bring in outsiders to tell us how we are doing because I think it's important.

So I wouldn't say skeptics. I'd say there is tension in the businesses - the kind of tension that you want. Tension means that there is movement. If there's no tension, then it's business as usual - you just call it Ecomagination, and you're not doing anything different.

I like the tension. The tension comes when we introduce the GE Money (business) to the energy financial-services (business), and we say, "You ought to buy their offsets." And we get these two businesses to work together.

Does it cause tension? Yeah, but look at the result.

I'd say if the only other place that we have concern - and we always have concern - is whether customers embrace it. We have to be careful that the customers don't feel that we are so far out in front of them that they can't keep up.

Related News

Frustration Mounts as Houston's Power Outage Extends

Houston Power Outage Heatwave intensifies a prolonged blackout, straining the grid and infrastructure resilience; emergency response, cooling centers, and power restoration efforts race to protect vulnerable residents amid extreme temperatures and climate risks.

 

Key Points

A multi-day blackout and heatwave straining Houston's grid, limiting cooling, and prompting emergency response.

✅ Fourth day without power amid dangerous heat

✅ Grid failures expose infrastructure vulnerabilities

✅ Cooling centers, aid groups support vulnerable residents

 

Houston is enduring significant frustration and hardship as a power outage stretches into its fourth day amid a sweltering heatwave. The extended blackout has exacerbated the challenges faced by residents in one of the nation’s largest and most dynamic cities, underscoring the critical need for reliable infrastructure and effective emergency response systems.

The power outage began early in the week, coinciding with a severe heatwave that has driven temperatures to dangerous levels. With the city experiencing some of the highest temperatures of the year, the lack of electricity has left residents without essential cooling, contributing to widespread discomfort and health risks. The heatwave has placed an added strain on Houston's already overburdened power grid, which has struggled to cope with the soaring demand for air conditioning and cooling.

The prolonged outage has led to escalating frustration among residents. Many households are grappling with sweltering indoor temperatures, leading to uncomfortable living conditions and concerns about the impact on vulnerable populations, including the elderly, young children, and individuals with pre-existing health conditions. The lack of power has also disrupted daily routines, as morning routine disruptions in London demonstrate, including access to refrigeration for food, which has led to spoilage and further complications.

Emergency services and utility companies have been working around the clock to restore power, but progress has been slow, echoing how Texas utilities struggled to restore power during Hurricane Harvey, as crews contended with access constraints. The complexity of the situation, combined with the high demand for repairs and the challenging weather conditions, has made it difficult to address the widespread outages efficiently. As the days pass, the situation has become increasingly dire, with residents growing more impatient and anxious about when they might see a resolution.

Local officials and utility providers have been actively communicating with the public, providing updates on the status of repairs and efforts to restore power. However, the communication has not always been timely or clear, leading to further frustration among those affected. The sense of uncertainty and lack of reliable information has compounded the difficulties faced by residents, who are left to manage the impacts of the outage with limited guidance.

The situation has also raised questions about the resilience of Houston’s power infrastructure. The outage has highlighted vulnerabilities in the city's energy grid, similar to how a recent windstorm caused significant outages elsewhere, which has faced previous challenges but has not experienced an extended failure of this magnitude in recent years. The inability of the grid to withstand the extreme heat and maintain service during a critical time underscores the need for infrastructure improvements and upgrades to better handle similar situations in the future.

In response to the crisis, community organizations and local businesses have stepped up to provide support to those in need, much like Toronto's cleanup after severe flooding mobilized volunteers and services, in order to aid affected residents. Cooling centers have been established to offer relief from the heat, providing a respite for individuals who are struggling to stay cool at home. Additionally, local food banks and charitable organizations are distributing essential supplies to those affected by food spoilage and other challenges caused by the power outage.

The power outage and heatwave have also sparked broader discussions about climate resilience and preparedness. Extreme weather events and prolonged heatwaves are becoming increasingly common due to climate change, as strong winds knocked out power across the Miami Valley recently, raising concerns about how cities and infrastructure systems can adapt to these new realities. The current situation in Houston serves as a stark reminder of the importance of investing in resilient infrastructure and developing comprehensive emergency response plans to mitigate the impacts of such events.

As the outage continues, there is a growing call for improved strategies to manage power grid failures, with examples like the North Seattle outage affecting 13,000 underscoring the need, and better support for residents during crises. Advocates are urging for a reevaluation of emergency response protocols, increased investment in infrastructure upgrades, and enhanced communication systems to ensure that the public receives timely and accurate information during emergencies.

In summary, Houston's power outage, now extending into its fourth day amid extreme heat, has caused significant frustration and hardship for residents. The prolonged disruption has underscored the need for more resilient energy infrastructure, as seen when power outages persisted for hundreds in Toronto, and effective emergency response measures. With temperatures soaring and the situation continuing to unfold, the city faces a critical challenge in restoring power, managing the impacts on its residents, and preparing for future emergencies. The crisis highlights broader issues related to infrastructure resilience and climate adaptation, emphasizing the need for comprehensive strategies to address and mitigate the effects of extreme weather events.

 

Related News

View more

Ontario hydro rates set to increase Nov. 1, Ontario Energy Board says

Ontario Electricity Rebate clarifies hydro rates as OEB aligns bills with inflation, shows true cost per kilowatt hour, and replaces Fair Hydro Plan; transparent on-bill credit offsets increases tied to nuclear refurbishment and supply costs.

 

Key Points

A line-item credit on Ontario hydro bills that offsets higher electricity costs and reflects OEB-set rates.

✅ Starts Nov. 1 with rates in line with inflation

✅ Shows true per-kWh cost plus separate rebate line

✅ Driven by nuclear refurbishment and supply costs

 

The Ontario Energy Board says electricity rate changes for households and small businesses will be going up starting next week.

The agency says rates are scheduled to increased by about $1.99 or nearly 2% for a typical residential customer who uses 700 kilowatt hours per month.

The provincial government said in March it would continue to subsidize hydro rates, through legislation to lower rates, and hold any increases to the rate of inflation.

The OEB says the new rates, which the board says are “in line” with inflation, will take effect Nov. 1 as changes for electricity consumers roll out and could be noticed on bills within a few weeks of that date.

Prices are increasing partly due to government legislation aimed at reflecting the actual cost of supply on bills, and partly due to the refurbishment of nuclear facilities, contributing to higher hydro bills for some consumers.

So, effective November 1, Ontario electricity bills will show the true cost of power, after a period of a fixed COVID-19 hydro rate, and will include the new Ontario Electricity Rebate.

Previously the electricity rebate was concealed within the price-per-kilowatt-hour line item on electricity statements, prompting Hydro One bill redesign discussions to improve clarity. This meant customers could not see how much the government rebate was reducing their monthly costs, and bills did not display the true cost of electricity used.

"People deserve facts and accountability, especially when it comes to hydro costs," said Energy Minister Rickford.

The new Ontario Electricity Rebate will appear as a transparent on-bill line item and will replace the former government's Fair Hydro Plan says a government news release. This change comes in response to the Auditor General's special report on the former government's Fair Hydro Plan which revealed that "the government created a needlessly complex accounting/financing structure for the electricity rate reduction in order to avoid showing a deficit or an increase in net debt."

"The Electricity Distributors Association commends the government's commitment to making Ontario's electricity bills more transparent," said Teresa Sarkesian, President of the Electricity Distributors Association. "As the part of our electricity system that is closest to customers, local hydro utilities appreciated the opportunity to work with the government on implementing this important initiative. We worked to ensure that customers who receive their electricity bill will have a clear understanding of the true cost of power and the amount of their on-bill rebate. Local hydro utilities are focused on making electricity more affordable, reducing red tape, and providing customers with a modern and reliable electricity system that works for them."

The average customer will see the electricity line on their bill rise, showing the real cost per kilowatt hour. The new Ontario Electricity Rebate will compensate for that rise, and will be displayed as a separate line item on hydro bills. The average residential bill will rise in line with the rate of inflation.

 

Related News

View more

UK families living close to nuclear power stations could get free electricity

UK Nuclear Free Electricity Incentive proposes community benefits near reactors, echoing France, supporting net zero goals, energy security, and streamlined planning, while addressing regulation and judicial review challenges for Sizewell C and future nuclear projects.

 

Key Points

A proposed policy to give free power to residents near reactors, supporting net zero and energy security.

✅ Free power for communities near nuclear plants

✅ Aligns with net zero and energy security goals

✅ Seeks streamlined planning and fewer approvals

 

UK Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg has endorsed a French-style nuclear system that sees people living near nuclear power stations receive free electricity.

Speaking at an event organised by Policy Exchange think tank, Jacob Rees-Mogg said: “Nuclear power is just fundamental. There’s no way we can get to net zero emissions, or even have an intelligent electricity strategy and grid reform in the UK, without nuclear.”

Highlighting that this was his view and not a government policy announcement, he said: “We should copy the French. As I understand, if you live near a nuclear power station in France, you get free electricity and that’s great because then, I’ll have two in my garden if I get free electricity for my children as well.

“I think you want to recognise that things you do that are in the national interest, such as a state-owned generation company, must benefit those who make the sacrifice for the national interest.”

Earlier Mr Rees-Mogg stressed that he would like to see a simpler development consent process for new nuclear power plants to enable the next waves of reactors in the UK, amid concerns that Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy.

He said: “That’s a lot of regulation around that, as seen when nuclear plant plans collapsed in Wales and impacted the local economy. Did you know that Sizewell C will require 140 individual approvals from arms of the state, each one of which is potentially subject to judicial review.”

 

Related News

View more

Group of premiers band together to develop nuclear reactor technology

Small Modular Reactors in Canada are advancing through provincial collaboration, offering nuclear energy, clean power and carbon reductions for grids, remote communities, and mines, with factory-built modules, regulatory roadmaps, and pre-licensing by the nuclear regulator.

 

Key Points

Compact, factory-built nuclear units for clean power, cutting carbon for grids, remote communities, and industry.

✅ Provinces: Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick collaborate

✅ Targets coal replacement, carbon cuts, clean baseload power

✅ Modular, factory-made units; 5-10 year deployment horizon

 

The premiers of Ontario, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick have committed to collaborate on developing nuclear reactor technology in Canada. 

Doug Ford, Scott Moe and Blaine Higgs made the announcement and signed a memorandum of understanding on Sunday in advance of a meeting of all the premiers. 

They will be working on the research, development and building of small modular reactors as a way to help their individual provinces reduce carbon emissions and move away from non-renewable energy sources like coal. 

Small modular reactors are easy to construct, are safer than large reactors and are regarded as cleaner energy than coal, the premiers say. They can be small enough to fit in a school gym. 

SMRs are actually not very close to entering operation in Canada, though Ontario broke ground on its first SMR at Darlington recently, signaling early progress. Natural Resources Canada released an "SMR roadmap" last year, with a series of recommendations about regulation readiness and waste management for SMRs.

In Canada, about a dozen companies are currently in pre-licensing with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which is reviewing their designs.

"Canadians working together, like we are here today, from coast to coast, can play an even larger role in addressing climate change in Canada and around the world," Moe said.  

Canada's Paris targets are to lower total emissions 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, and nuclear's role in climate goals has been emphasized by the federal minister in recent remarks. Moe says the reactors would help Saskatchewan reach a 70 per cent reduction by that year.

The provinces' three energy ministries will meet in the new year to discuss how to move forward and by the fall a fully-fledged strategy for the reactors is expected to be ready.

However, don't expect to see them popping up in a nearby field anytime soon. It's estimated it will take five to 10 years before they're built. 

Ford lauds economic possibilities
The provincial leaders said it could be an opportunity for economic growth, estimating the Canadian market for this energy at $10 billion and the global market at $150 billion.

Ford called it an "opportunity for Canada to be a true leader." At a time when Ottawa and the provinces are at odds, Higgs said it's the perfect time to show unity. 

"It's showing how provinces come together on issues of the future." 

P.E.I. premier predicts unity at Toronto premiers' meeting
No other premiers have signed on to the deal at this point, but Ford said all are welcome and "the more, the merrier."

But developing new energy technologies is a daunting task. Higgs admitted the project will need national support of some kind, though he didn't specify what. The agreement signed by the premiers is also not binding. 

About 8.6 per cent of Canada's electricity comes from coal-fired generation. In New Brunswick that figure is much higher — 15.8 per cent — and New Brunswick's small-nuclear debate has intensified as New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs has said he worries about his province's energy producers being hit by the federal carbon tax.

Ontario has no coal-fired power plants, and OPG's SMR commitment aligns with its clean electricity strategy today. In Saskatchewan, burning coal generates 46.6 per cent of the province's electricity.

How would it work?
The federal government describes small modular reactors (SMRs) as the "next wave of innovation" in nuclear energy technology, and collaborations like the OPG and TVA partnership are advancing development efforts, and an "important technology opportunity for Canada."

Traditional nuclear reactors used in Canada typically generate about 800 megawatts of electricity, and Ontario is exploring new large-scale nuclear plants alongside SMRs, or enough to power about 600,000 homes at once (assuming that 1 megawatt can power about 750 homes).

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN organization for nuclear co-operation, considers a nuclear reactor to be "small" if it generates under 300 megawatts.

Designs for small reactors ranging from just 3 megawatts to 300 megawatts have been submitted to Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, for review as part of a pre-licensing process, while plans for four SMRs at Darlington outline a potential build-out pathway that regulators will assess.

Ford rallying premiers to call for large increase in federal health transfers
Such reactors are considered "modular" because they're designed to work either independently or as modules in a bigger complex (as is already the case with traditional, larger reactors at most Canadian nuclear power plants). A power plant could be expanded incrementally by adding additional modules.

Modules are generally designed to be small enough to make in a factory and be transported easily — for example, via a standard shipping container.

In Canada, there are three main areas where SMRs could be used:

Traditional, on-grid power generation, especially in provinces looking for zero-emissions replacements for CO2-emitting coal plants.
Remote communities that currently rely on polluting diesel generation.
Resource extraction sites, such as mining and oil and gas.
 

 

Related News

View more

Nevada on track to reach RPS mandate of 50% renewable electricity by 2030: report

Nevada Renewable Portfolio Standard 2030 targets 50% clean energy, advancing solar, geothermal, and wind, cutting GHG emissions, phasing out coal, and expanding storage, EV infrastructure, and in-state renewables under PUCN oversight and tax abatements.

 

Key Points

A state mandate requiring 50% of electricity from renewables by 2030, driving solar, geothermal, wind, and storage.

✅ 50% clean power by 2030; 100% carbon-free target by 2050

✅ Growth in solar, geothermal, wind; coal phase-out; natural gas remains

✅ RETA incentives spur 6.1 GW capacity, jobs, and in-state investment

 

Nevada is on track to meet its Renewable Portfolio Standard of 50% of electricity generated by renewable energy sources by 2030, according to the Governor's Office of Energy's annual Status of Energy Report.

Based on compliance reports the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada has received, across all providers, about 20% of power is currently generated by renewable resources, and, nationally, renewables ranked second in 2020 as filings show Nevada's investor-owned utility and other power providers have plans to reach the state's ambitious RPS of 50% by 2030, according to the report released Jan. 28.

"Because transportation and electricity generation are Nevada's two largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, GOE's program work in 2021 underscored our focus on transportation electrification and reaching the state's legislatively required renewable portfolio standard," GOE Director David Bobzien said in a statement Jan. 28. "While electricity generated from renewable resources currently accounts for about 25% of the state's electricity, a share similar to projections that renewables will soon provide about one-fourth of U.S. electricity overall, we continue to collaborate with the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, electricity providers, the renewable energy industry and conservation organizations to ensure Nevada reaches our target of 50% clean energy by 2030."

The state's RPS, enacted in 1997 and last modified in 2019, requires an increase in renewable energy, starting with 22% in 2020 and increasing to 50% by 2030. The increase in renewables will reduce GHG emissions and help the state reach its goal of 100% carbon-free power by 2050, while states like Rhode Island have a 100% by 2030 plan, highlighting varying timelines.

Renewable additions
The state added 1.332 GW of renewable capacity in 2021 as part of the Renewable Energy Tax Abatement program, at a time when U.S. renewable energy hit a record 28% in April, for a total renewable capacity of 6.117 GW, according to the report.

The RETA program awards partial sales and use tax and partial property-tax abatements to eligible renewable energy facilities, which increase Nevada's tax revenue and create jobs in a growing industry. Eligible projects must employ at least 50% Nevada workers, pay 175% of Nevada's average wage during construction, and offer health care benefits to workers and their dependents.

Since its adoption in 2010, the GOE has approved 60 projects, including large-scale solar PV, solar thermal, biomass, geothermal and wind projects throughout the state, according to the report. Projects granted abatements in 2021 include:

  • 100-MW Citadel Solar Project
  • 150-MW Dry Lake Solar + Storage Project
  • 714-MW Gemini Solar Project
  • 55-MW North Valley Power Geothermal Project
  • 113-MW Boulder Flats Solar Project
  • 200-MW Arrow Canyon Solar Project

"Nevada does not produce fossil fuels of any significant amount, and gasoline, jet fuel and natural gas for electricity or direct use must be imported," according to the report. "Transitioning to domestically produced renewable resources and electrified transportation can provide cost savings to Nevada residents and businesses, as seen in Idaho's largely renewable mix today, while reducing GHG emissions. About 86% of the fuel for energy that Nevada consumes comes from outside the state."

Phasing out coal plants
Currently, more than two-thirds of the state's electricity is produced by natural gas-fired power plants, with renewables covering most of the remaining generation, according to the report. Nevada continues to phase out its remaining coal power plants, as renewables surpassed coal nationwide in 2022, which provide less than 10% of produced electricity.

"Nevada has seen a significant increase in capturing its abundant renewable energy resources such as solar and geothermal," according to the report. "Renewable energy production continues to grow, powering Nevada homes and business and serves to diversify the state's economy by exporting solar and geothermal to neighboring states, as California neared 100% renewable electricity for the first time. Nevada has more than tripled its renewable energy production since 2011."

 

Related News

View more

Ontario Energy minister downplays dispute between auditor, electricity regulator

Ontario IESO Accounting Dispute highlights tensions over public sector accounting standards, auditor general oversight, electricity market transparency, KPMG advice, rate-regulated accounting, and an alleged $1.3B deficit understatement affecting Hydro bills and provincial finances.

 

Key Points

A PSAS clash between Ontario's auditor general and the IESO, alleging a $1.3B deficit impact and transparency failures.

✅ Auditor alleges deficit understated by $1.3B

✅ Dispute over PSAS vs US-style accounting

✅ KPMG support, transparency and co-operation questioned

 

The bad blood between the Ontario government and auditor general bubbled to the surface once again Monday, with the Liberal energy minister downplaying a dispute between the auditor and the Crown corporation that manages the province's electricity market, even as the government pursued legislation to lower electricity rates in the province.

Glenn Thibeault said concerns raised by auditor general Bonnie Lysyk during testimony before a legislative committee last week aren't new and the practices being used by the Independent Electricity System Operator are commonly endorsed by major auditing firms.

"(Lysyk) doesn't like the rate-regulated accounting. We've always said we've relied on the other experts within the field as well, plus the provincial controller," Thibeault said.

#google#

"We believe that we are following public sector accounting standards."

Thibeault said that Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One and many other provinces and U.S. states use the same accounting practices.

"We go with what we're being told by those who are in the field, like KPMG, like E&Y," he said.

But a statement from Lysyk's office Monday disputed Thibeault's assessment.

"The minister said the practices being used by the IESO are common in other jurisdictions," the statement said.

"In fact, the situation with the IESO is different because none of the six other jurisdictions with entities similar to the IESOuse Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards. Five of them are in the United States and use U.S. accounting standards."

Lysyk said last week that the IESO is using "bogus" accounting practices and her office launched a special audit of the agency late last year after the agency changed their accounting to be more in line with U.S. accounting, following reports of a phantom demand problem that cost customers millions.

Lysyk said the accounting changes made by the IESO impact the province's deficit, understating it by $1.3 billion as of the end of 2017, adding that IESO "stalled" her office when it asked for information and was not co-operative during the audit.

Lysyk's full audit of the IESO is expected to be released in the coming weeks and is among several accounting disputes her office has been engaged in with the Liberal government over the past few years.

Last fall, she accused the government of purposely obscuring the true financial impact of its 25% hydro rate cut by keeping billions in debt used to finance that plan off the province's books. Lysyk had said she would audit the IESO because of its role in the hydro plan's complex accounting scheme.

"Management of the IESO and the board would not co-operate with us, in the sense that they continually say they're co-operating, but they stalled on giving us information," she said last week.

Terry Young, a vice-president with the IESO, said the agency has fully co-operated with the auditor general. The IESO opened up its office to seven staff members from the auditor's office while they did their work.

"We recognize the work that she's doing and to that end we've tried to fully co-operate," he said. "We've given her all of the information that we can."

Young said the change in accounting standards is about ensuring greater transparency in transactions in the energy marketplace.

"It's consistent with many other independent electricity system operators are doing," he said.

Lysyk also criticized IESO's accounting firm, KPMG, for agreeing with the IESO on the accounting standards. She was critical of the firm billing taxpayers for nearly $600,000 work with the IESO in 2017, compared to their normal yearly audit fee of $86,500.

KPMG spokeswoman Lisa Papas said the accounting issues that IESO addressed during 2017 were complex, contributing to the higher fees.

The accounting practices the auditor is questioning are a "difference of professional judgement," she said.

"The standards for public sector organizations such as IESO are principles-based standards and, accordingly, require the exercise of considerable professional judgement," she said in a statement.

"In many cases, there is more than one acceptable approach that is compliant with the applicable standards."

Progressive Conservative energy critic Todd Smith said the government isn't being transparent with the auditor general or taxpayers, aligning with calls for cleaning up Ontario's hydro mess in the sector.

"Obviously, they have some kind of dispute but the auditor's office is saying that the numbers that the government is putting out there are bogus.

Those are her words," he said. "We've always said that we believe the auditor general's are the true numbers for the
province of Ontario."

NDP energy critic Peter Tabuns said the Liberal government has decided to "play with accounting rules" to make its books look better ahead of the spring election, despite warnings that electricity prices could soar if costs are pushed into the future.

 

Related News

View more

Sign Up for Electricity Forum’s Newsletter

Stay informed with our FREE Newsletter — get the latest news, breakthrough technologies, and expert insights, delivered straight to your inbox.

Electricity Today T&D Magazine Subscribe for FREE

Stay informed with the latest T&D policies and technologies.
  • Timely insights from industry experts
  • Practical solutions T&D engineers
  • Free access to every issue

Live Online & In-person Group Training

Advantages To Instructor-Led Training – Instructor-Led Course, Customized Training, Multiple Locations, Economical, CEU Credits, Course Discounts.

Request For Quotation

Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person instruction, our electrical training courses can be tailored to meet your company's specific requirements and delivered to your employees in one location or at various locations.