Kansai Electric Says Fuel Costs May Rise by 400 Billion Yen

San Juan Generating Station eyed for $1 coal-plant sale, as Farmington and Acme propose CCS retrofit, meeting emissions caps and renewable mandates by selling captured CO2 for enhanced oil recovery via a nearby pipeline.

Key Points

A New Mexico coal plant eyed for $1 and a CCS retrofit to cut emissions and sell CO2 for enhanced oil recovery.

✅ $400M-$800M CCS retrofit; 90% CO2 capture target

✅ CO2 sales for enhanced oil recovery; 20-mile pipeline gap

✅ PNM projects shutdown savings; renewable and emissions mandates

One dollar. That’s how much an aging New Mexico coal plant is worth. And by some estimates, even that may be too much.

Acme Equities LLC, a New York-based holding company, is in talks to buy the 847-megawatt San Juan Generating Station for $1, after four of its five owners decided to shut it down. The fifth owner, the nearby city of Farmington, says it’s pursuing the bargain-basement deal with Acme to avoid losing about 1,600 direct and indirect jobs in the area amid a broader just transition debate for energy workers.

We respectfully disagree with the notion that the plant is not economical

Acme’s interest comes as others are looking to exit a coal industry that’s been plagued by costly anti-pollution regulations. Acme’s plan: Buy the plant "at a very low cost," invest in carbon capture technology that will lower emissions, and then sell the captured CO2 to oil companies, said Larry Heller, a principal at the holding group.

By doing this, Acme “believes we can generate an acceptable rate of return,” Heller said in an email.

Meanwhile, San Juan’s majority owner, PNM Resources Inc., offers a distinctly different view, echoing declining coal returns reported by other utilities. A 2022 shutdown will push ratepayers to other energy alternatives now being planned, saving them about $3 to $4 a month on average, PNM has said.

“We could not identify a solution that would make running San Juan Generating Station economical,” said Tom Fallgren, a PNM vice president, in an email.

The potential sale comes as a new clean-energy bill, supported by Governor Lujan Grisham, is working its way through the state legislature. It would require the state to get half of its power from renewable sources by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045, even as other jurisdictions explore small modular reactor strategies to meet future demand. At the same time, the legislation imposes an emissions cap that’s about 60 percent lower than San Juan’s current levels.

In response, Acme is planning to spend $400 million to $800 million to retrofit the facility with carbon capture and sequestration technology that would collect carbon dioxide before it’s released into the atmosphere, Heller said. That would put the facility into compliance with the pending legislation and, at the same time, help generate revenue for the plant.

The company estimates the system would cut emissions by as much as 90 percent, and the captured gas could be sold to oil companies, which uses it to enhance well recovery. The bottom line, according to Heller: “A winning financial formula.”

It’s a tricky formula at best. Carbon-capture technology has been controversial, even as new coal plant openings remain rare, expensive to install and unproven at scale. Additionally, to make it work at the San Juan plant, the company would need to figure out how to deliver the CO2 to customers since the nearest pipeline is about 20 miles (32 kilometers) away.

Reducing costs

Acme is also evaluating ways to reduce costs at San Juan, Heller said, including approaches seen at operators extending the life of coal plants under regulatory scrutiny, such as negotiating a cheaper coal-supply contract and qualifying for subsidies.

Farmington’s stake in the plant is less than 10 percent. But under terms of the partnership, the city — population 45,000 — can assume full control of San Juan should the other partners decide to pull out, mirroring policy debates over saving struggling nuclear plants in other regions. That’s given Farmington the legal authority to pursue the plant’s sale to Acme.

At the end of the day, nobody wants the energy

“We respectfully disagree with the notion that the plant is not economical,” Farmington Mayor Nate Duckett said by email. Ducket said he’s in better position than the other owners to assess San Juan’s importance “because we sit at Ground Zero.”

The city’s economy would benefit from keeping open both the plant and a nearby coal mine that feeds it, according to Duckett, with operations that contribute about $170 million annually to the local area.

While the loss of those jobs would be painful to some, Camilla Feibelman, a Sierra Club chapter director, is hard pressed to see a business case for keeping San Juan open, pointing to sector closures such as the Three Mile Island shutdown as evidence of shifting economics. The plant isn’t economical now, and would almost certainly be less so after investing the capital to add carbon-capture systems.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

PG&E Wind Shutdown and Renewable Reliability examines PSPS strategy, wildfire risk, transmission line exposure, wind turbine cut-out speeds, grid stability, and California's energy mix amid historic high-wind events and supply constraints across service areas.

Key Points

An overview of PG&E's PSPS decisions, wildfire mitigation, and how wind cut-out limits influence grid reliability.

✅ Wind turbines reach cut-out near 55 mph, reducing generation.

✅ PSPS mitigates ignition from damaged transmission infrastructure.

✅ Baseload diversity improves resilience during high-wind events.

According to the official, widely reported story, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) initiated power shutoffs across substantial portions of its electric transmission system in northern California as a precautionary measure.

Citing high wind speeds they described as “historic,” the utility claims that if it didn’t turn off the grid, wind-caused damage to its infrastructure could start more wildfires.

Perhaps that’s true. Perhaps. This tale presumes that the folks who designed and maintain PG&E’s transmission system are unaware of or ignored the need to design it to withstand severe weather events, and that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) allowed the utility to do so.

Ignorance and incompetence happens, to be sure, but there’s much about this story that doesn’t smell right—and it’s disappointing that most journalists and elected officials are apparently accepting it without question.

Take, for example, this statement from a Fox News story about the Kincade Fires: “A PG&E meteorologist said it’s ‘likely that many trees will fall, branches will break,’ which could damage utility infrastructure and start a fire.”

Did you ever notice how utilities cut wide swaths of trees away when transmission lines pass through forests? There’s a reason for that: When trees fall and branches break, the grid can still function, and even as the electric rhythms of New York City shifted during COVID-19, operators planned for variability.

So, if badly designed and poorly maintained infrastructure isn’t the reason PG&E cut power to millions of Californians, what might have prompted them to do so? Could it be that PG&E’s heavy reliance on renewable energy means they don’t have the power to send when a “historic” weather event occurs, especially as policymakers weigh the postponed closure of three power plants elsewhere in California?

Wind Speed Limits

The two most popular forms of renewable energy come with operating limitations, which is why some energy leaders urge us to keep electricity options open when planning the grid. With solar power, the constraint is obvious: the availability of sunlight. One doesn’t generate solar power at night and energy generation drops off with increasing degrees of cloud cover during the day.

The main operating constraint of wind power is, of course, wind speed, and even in markets undergoing 'transformative change' in wind generation, operators adhere to these technical limits. At the low end of the scale, you need about a 6 or 7 miles-per-hour wind to get a turbine moving. This is called the “cut-in speed.” To generate maximum power, about a 30 mph wind is typically required. But, if the wind speed is too high, the wind turbine will shut down. This is called the “cut-out speed,” and it’s about 55 miles per hour for most modern wind turbines.

It may seem odd that wind turbines have a cut-out speed, but there’s a very good reason for it. Each wind turbine rotor is connected to an electric generator housed in the turbine nacelle. The connection is made through a gearbox that is sized to turn the generator at the precise speed required to produce 60 Hertz AC power.

The blades of the wind turbine are airfoils, just like the wings of an airplane. Adjusting the pitch (angle) of the blades allows the rotor to maintain constant speed, which, in turn, allows the generator to maintain the constant speed it needs to safely deliver power to the grid. However, there’s a limit to blade pitch adjustment. When the wind is blowing so hard that pitch adjustment is no longer possible, the turbine shuts down. That’s the cut-out speed.

Now consider how California’s power generation profile has changed. According to Energy Information Administration data, the state generated 74.3 percent of its electricity from traditional sources—fossil fuels and nuclear, amid debates over whether to classify nuclear as renewable—in 2001. Hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass-generated power accounted for most of the remaining 25.7 percent, with wind and solar providing only 1.98 percent of the total.

By 2018, the state’s renewable portfolio had jumped to 43.8 percent of total generation, with clean power increasing and wind and solar now accounting for 17.9 percent of total generation. That’s a lot of power to depend on from inherently unreliable sources. Thus, it wouldn’t be at all surprising to learn that PG&E didn’t stop delivering power out of fear of starting fires, but because it knew it wouldn’t have power to deliver once high winds shut down all those wind turbines

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

WEC Energy Blooming Grove Investment underscores Midwest renewable energy growth, with Invenergy, GE turbines, and 250 MW wind power capacity, tax credits, PPAs, and utility-scale generation supplying corporate offtakers via long-term contracts.

Key Points

It is WEC Energy's $345M purchase of an 80% stake in Invenergy's 250 MW Blooming Grove wind farm in Illinois.

✅ 94 GE turbines; 250 MW utility-scale wind capacity

✅ Output contracted to two multinational offtakers

✅ Eligible for 100% bonus depreciation and wind tax credits

WEC Energy Group, the parent company of We Energies, is buying an 80% stake in a wind farm, as seen with projects like Enel's 450 MW wind farm coming online, in McLean County, Illinois, for $345 million.

The wind farm, known as the Blooming Grove Wind Farm, is being developed by Invenergy, which recently completed the largest North American wind build with GE partners, a company based in Chicago that develops wind, solar and other power projects. WEC Energy has invested in several wind farms developed by Invenergy.

With the agreement announced Monday, WEC Energy will have invested more than $1.2 billion in wind farms in the Midwest, echoing heartland investment growth across the region. The power from the wind farms is sold to other utilities or companies, as federal initiatives like DOE wind awards continue to support innovation, and the projects are separate from the investments made by WEC Energy's regulated utilities, such as We Energies, in wind power.

The project, which will consist of 94 wind turbines from General Electric, is expected to be completed this year, similar to recent project operations in the sector, and will have a capacity of 250 megawatts, WEC said in a news release.

Affiliates of two undisclosed multinational companies akin to EDF's offshore investment activity have contracted to take all of the wind farm's output.

The investment is expected to be eligible for 100% bonus depreciation and, as wind economics help illustrate key trends, the tax credits available for wind projects, WEC Energy said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

COVID-19 Impact on Global Oil Demand 2020 signals an IEA forecast of declining consumption as travel restrictions curb transport fuels, disrupt energy markets, and shift OPEC and non-OPEC supply dynamics amid economic slowdown.

Key Points

IEA sees first demand drop since 2009 as COVID-19 curbs travel, weakening transport fuels and unsettling energy markets.

✅ IEA base case: 2020 demand at 99.9 mb/d, down 90 kb/d from 2019.

✅ Travel restrictions hit transport fuels; China drives the decline.

✅ Scenarios: low -730 kb/d; high +480 kb/d in 2020.

Global oil demand is expected to decline in 2020 as the impact of the new coronavirus (COVID-19) spreads around the world, constricting travel and broader economic activity, according to the International Energy Agency’s latest oil market forecast.

The situation remains fluid, creating an extraordinary degree of uncertainty over what the full global impact of the virus will be. In the IEA’s central base case, even as global CO2 emissions flatlined in 2019 according to the IEA, demand this year drops for the first time since 2009 because of the deep contraction in oil consumption in China, and major disruptions to global travel and trade.

“The coronavirus crisis is affecting a wide range of energy markets – including coal-fired electricity generation, gas and renewables – but its impact on oil markets is particularly severe because it is stopping people and goods from moving around, dealing a heavy blow to demand for transport fuels,” said Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA’s Executive Director. “This is especially true in China, the largest energy consumer in the world, which accounted for more than 80% of global oil demand growth last year. While the repercussions of the virus are spreading to other parts of the world, what happens in China will have major implications for global energy and oil markets.”

The IEA now sees global oil demand at 99.9 million barrels a day in 2020, down around 90,000 barrels a day from 2019. This is a sharp downgrade from the IEA’s forecast in February, which predicted global oil demand would grow by 825,000 barrels a day in 2020.

The short-term outlook for the oil market will ultimately depend on how quickly governments move to contain the coronavirus outbreak, how successful their efforts are, and what lingering impact the global health crisis has on economic activity.

To account for the extreme uncertainty facing energy markets, the IEA has developed two other scenarios for how global oil demand could evolve this year. In a more pessimistic low case, global measures fail to contain the virus, and global demand falls by 730,000 barrels a day in 2020. In a more optimistic high case, the virus is contained quickly around the world, and global demand grows by 480,000 barrels a day.

“We are following the situation extremely closely and will provide regular updates to our forecasts as the picture becomes clearer,” Dr Birol said. “The impact of the coronavirus on oil markets may be temporary. But the longer-term challenges facing the world’s suppliers are not going to go away, especially those heavily dependent on oil and gas revenues. As the IEA has repeatedly said, these producer countries need more dynamic and diversified economies in order to navigate the multiple uncertainties that we see today.”

The IEA also published its medium-term outlook examining the key issues in global demand, supply, refining and trade to 2025, as well as the trajectory of the global energy transition now shaping markets. Following a contraction in 2020 and an expected sharp rebound in 2021, yearly growth in global oil demand is set to slow as consumption of transport fuels grows more slowly and as national net-zero pathways, with Canada needing more electricity to reach net-zero influencing power demand, according to the report. Between 2019 and 2025, global oil demand is expected to grow at an average annual rate of just below 1 million barrels a day. Over the period as whole, demand rises by a total of 5.7 million barrels a day, with China and India accounting for about half of the growth.

At the same time, the world’s oil production capacity is expected to rise by 5.9 million barrels a day, with more than three-quarters of it coming from non-OPEC producers, the report forecasts. But production growth in the United States and other non-OPEC countries is set to lose momentum after 2022, amid shifts in Wall Street's energy strategy linked to policy signals, allowing OPEC producers from the Middle East to turn the taps back up to help keep the global oil market in balance.

The medium-term market report, Oil 2020, also considers the impact of clean energy transitions on oil market trends. Demand growth for gasoline and diesel between 2019 and 2025 is forecast to weaken as countries around the world implement policies to improve efficiency and cut carbon dioxide emissions – and as solar power becomes the cheapest electricity in many markets and electric vehicles increase in popularity. The impact of energy transitions on oil supply remains unclear, with many companies prioritising short-cycle projects for the coming years.

“The coronavirus crisis is adding to the uncertainties the global oil industry faces as it contemplates new investments and business strategies,” Dr Birol said. “The pressures on companies are changing, with European oil majors turning electric to diversify. They need to show that they can deliver not just the energy that economies rely on, but also the emissions reductions that the world needs to help tackle our climate challenge.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

NB Power Pulp and Paper Subsidies lower electricity rates for six New Brunswick mills using firm power benchmarks and interruptible discounts, while government mandates, utility debt, ratepayer impacts, and competitiveness pressures shape provincial energy policy.

Key Points

Provincial mandates that buy down firm electricity rates for six mills to a national average, despite NB Power's debt.

✅ Mandated buy-down to match national firm electricity rates

✅ Ignores large non-firm interruptible power discounts

✅ Raises equity concerns amid NB Power debt and rate pressure

An effort to fix NB Power's struggling finances that is supposed to involve a look at "all options" will not include a review of the policy that requires the utility to subsidize electricity prices for six New Brunswick pulp and paper mills, according to the Department of Natural Resources and Energy Development.

The program is meant "to enable New Brunswick's pulp and paper companies have access to competitive priced electricity,"  said the department's communications officer Nick Brown in an email Monday 

"Keeping our large industries competitive with other Canadian jurisdictions, amid Nova Scotia rate hike opposition debates elsewhere, is important," he wrote, knocking down the idea the subsidy program might be scrutinized for shortcomings like other NB Power expenses.

Figures released last week show NB Power paid out $9.7 million in rate subsidies to the mills under the program in the fiscal year ended in March 2021, even though the utility was losing $4 million for the year and falling deeper into debt, amid separate concerns about old meter issues affecting households.

Subsidies went to three mills owned by J.D. Irving Ltd. including two in Saint John and one in Lake Utopia, two owned by the AV group in Nackawic and Atholville and the Twin Rivers pulp mill in Edmundston.

The New Brunswick government has made NB Power subsidize pulp and paper mills like Twin Rivers Paper Company since 2012, and is requiring the program to continue despite financial problems at the utility. (CBC)
It was NB Power's second year in a row of financial losses, while it is supposed to pay down $500 million of its $4.9 billion debt load in the next five years to prepare for the refurbishment of the Mactaquac dam, a burden comparable to customers in Newfoundland paying for Muskrat Falls elsewhere under separate policies, under a directive issued by the province

NB Power president Keith Cronkhite said he was "very disappointed" with debt increasing last year instead of  falling and senior vice president and chief financial officer Darren Murphy said everything would be under the microscope this year to turn the utility's finances around.  

"We need to do better," said Murphy on Thursday

"We need to step back and make sure we're considering all options, including approaches like Newfoundland's ratepayer shield agreement on megaproject overruns, to achieve that objective because the objective is quickly closing in on us."

However, reviewing the subsidy program for the six pulp and paper mills is apparently off limits.

The subsidy program requires NB Power to buy down the cost of "firm" electricity bought by pulp and paper mills to a national average that is calculated by the Department of Natural Resources and Energy Development.

Last year the province declared the price mills in New Brunswick pay to be an average of  7.536 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh).  It is higher than rates in five other provinces that have mills, which the province points to as justification for the subsidies, even as Nova Scotia's 14% rate hike approval highlights broader upward pressure, although the true significance of that difference is not entirely clear.

In British Columbia, the large forest products company Paper Excellence operates five pulp and paper mills which are charged 17.2 per cent less for firm electricity than the six mills in New Brunswick.

The Paper Excellence Paper Mill in Port Alberni, B.C. pays lower electricity prices than mills in New Brunswick, a benefit largely offset by higher property taxes. It's a factor New Brunswick does not count in calculating subsidies NB Power must pay. (Paper Excellence)
However, local property taxes on the five BC mills are a combined $7.8 million higher than the six New Brunswick plants, negating much of that difference.

The province's subsidy formula does not account for differences like that or for the fact New Brunswick mills buy a high percentage of their electricity at cheap non-firm prices.

Not counting the subsidies, NB Power already sells high volumes of what it calls interruptible and surplus power to industry at deep discounts on the understanding it can be cut off and redeployed elsewhere on short notice when needed.

Actual interruptions in service are rare.  Last year there were none, but NB Power sold 837 million kilowatt hours of the discounted power to industry at an average price of 4.9 cents per kwh.   

NB Power does not disclose how much of the $22 million or more in savings went to the six mills, but the price was 35 per cent below NB Power's posted rate for the plants and rivaled firm prices big mills receive anywhere in Canada, including Quebec.

Asked why the subsidy program ignores large amounts of discounted interruptible power used by New Brunswick mills in making comparisons between provinces, Brown said regulations governing the program require a comparison of firm prices only.

"The New Brunswick average rate is based on NB Power's published large industrial rate for firm energy, as required by the Electricity from Renewable Resources regulation," he wrote.

The subsidy program itself was imposed on NB Power by the province in 2012 to aid companies suffering after years of poor markets for forest products following the 2008 financial collapse and recession.  

Providing subsidies has cost NB Power $100 million so far and has continued even as markets for pulp products improved significantly and NB Power's own finances worsened.

Report warned against subsidies
NB Power has never directly criticized the program, but in a matter currently in front the of the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board looking at how NB Power might restructure its rates, including proposals such as seasonal rates that could prompt backlash, an independent consultant hired by the utility suggested rate subsidies to large export oriented manufacturing facilities, like pulp and paper mills, is generally a poor idea.

"We do not recommend offering subsidies to exporters," says the report by Christensen Associates Energy Consulting of Madison, Wis.

"There are two serious economic problems with subsidizing exports. The first is that the benefits may be less than the costs. The second problem is that subsidies tend to last forever, even if the circumstances that initially justified the subsidies have disappeared."

The Christensen report did not directly assess the merits of the current subsidy for pulp and paper mills but it addressed the issue because it said in the design of new rates "one NB Power business customer has raised the possibility that their electricity-intensive business ought to be granted subsidies because of the potential to generate extra benefits for the Province through increases in their exports"

That, said Christensen, rarely benefits the public.

"The direct costs of the subsidies are the subsidies themselves, a part of which ends up in the pockets of out-of-province consumers of the exported goods," said the report.  

"But there are also indirect costs due to the fact that the subsidies are financed through higher electricity prices, which means that other electricity customers have less money to spend on services provided by local businesses, thus putting a drag on the local economy."

The province does not agree.

Asked whether it has any studies or cost-benefit reviews that show the subsidy program is a net benefit to New Brunswick, the department cited none but maintained it is an important initiative, even as elsewhere governments have offered electricity bill credit relief to ratepayers.

"The program was designed to give large industrial businesses the ability to compete on a level energy field," wrote Brown.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

ATCO Electric administrative penalty underscores an Alberta Utilities Commission probe into a sole-sourced First Nation contract, Jasper transmission line overpayments, and nondisclosure to ratepayers, sparked by a whistleblower and pending settlement approval.

Key Points

A $31M AUC settlement over alleged overpayment, sole-sourcing, and nondisclosure tied to a Jasper transmission line.

✅ $31M administrative penalty; AUC settlement pending approval

✅ Sole-sourced First Nation contract to protect related ATCO deal

✅ Overpayment concealed when seeking recovery from ratepayers

Regulated Alberta utility ATCO Electric has agreed to pay a $31 million administrative penalty after an Alberta Utilities Commission utilities watchdog investigation found it deliberately overpaid a First Nation group for work on a new transmission line, and then failed to disclose the reasons for it when it applied to be reimbursed by ratepayers for the extra cost.

An agreed statement of facts contained in a settlement agreement between ATCO Electric Ltd. and the commission's enforcement staff says the company sole-sourced a contract in 2018 for work that was necessary for an electric transmission line to Jasper, Alta., even as BC Hydro marked a Site C transmission line milestone elsewhere.

The company that won the contract was co-owned by the Simpcw First Nation in Barriere, B.C., while debates over a First Nations electricity line in Ontario underscore related issues, and the agreement says one of the reasons for the sole-sourcing was that another of Calgary-based ATCO's subsidiaries had a prior deal with the First Nation for infrastructure projects that included the provision of work camps on the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project.

The statement of facts says ATCO Electric feared that if it didn't grant the contract to the First Nation group and instead put the work to tender, amid legal pressures such as a treaty rights challenge, the group might back out of its deal with ATCO Structures and Logistics and partner with another, non-ATCO company on the Trans Mountain work.

The agreed statement says ATCO Electric paid several million dollars more than market value for some of the Jasper line work, while a Manitoba-Minnesota line delay was being weighed in another jurisdiction, and staff attempted to conceal the reasons for the overpayment when they sought to recover the extra money from Alberta consumers.

It states the investigation was sparked by a whistleblower, and notes the agreement between the utility commission's enforcement staff and ATCO Electric must still be approved by the Alberta Utilities Commission, a process comparable to hearings that consider oral traditional evidence on interprovincial lines.

The commission must be satisfied the settlement is in the public interest, a consideration often informed by concerns from Site C opponents in other regions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News