National Grid warns of short supply of electricity over next few days

PG&E Wildfire Assistance Program offers court-approved aid and emergency grants for Northern California wildfires and Camp Fire victims, covering unmet needs, housing, and essentials; apply online by November 15, 2019 under Chapter 11-funded eligibility.

Key Points

A $105M, court-approved aid fund offering unmet-needs payments and emergency support for 2017-2018 wildfire victims.

✅ $5,000 Basic Unmet Needs per household, self-certified

✅ Supplemental aid for extreme circumstances after basic grants

✅ Apply online; deadline November 15, 2019; identity required

Beginning today, August 15, 2019, those displaced by the 2017 Northern California wildfires and 2018 Camp fire can apply for aid through an independently administered Wildfire Assistance Program funded by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). PG&E’s $105 million fund, approved by the judge in PG&E’s Chapter 11 cases and related bankruptcy plan, is intended to help those who are either uninsured or need assistance with alternative living expenses or other urgent needs. The court-approved independent administrator is set to file the eligibility criteria as required by the court and will open the application process.

“Our goal is to get the money to those who most need it as quickly as possible. We will prioritize wildfire victims who have urgent needs, including those who are currently without adequate shelter,” said Cathy Yanni, plan administrator. Yanni is partnering with local agencies and community organizations to administer the fund, and PG&E also supports local communities through property tax contributions to counties.

“We appreciate the diligent work of the fund administrator in quickly establishing a way to distribute these funds and ensuring the program supports those with the most immediate needs. PG&E is focused on helping those impacted by the devastating wildfires in recent years and strengthening our energy system to reduce wildfire risks and prevent utility-caused catastrophic fires. We feel strongly that helping these communities now is the right thing to do,” said Bill Johnson, CEO and President of PG&E Corporation.

Applicants can request a “Basic Unmet Needs” payment of $5,000 per household for victims who establish basic eligibility requirements and self-certify that they have at least $5,000 of unmet needs that have not been compensated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Payments are to support needs such as water, food, prescriptions, medical supplies and equipment, infant formula and diapers, personal hygiene items, and transportation fuels beyond what FEMA covered in the days immediately following the declared disasters, aligning with broader health and safety actions the company has taken.

Those who receive basic payments may also qualify for a “Supplemental Unmet Needs” payment. These funds will be available only after “Basic Unmet Needs” payments have been issued. Supplemental payments will be available to individuals and families who currently face extreme or extraordinary circumstances as compared to others who were impacted by the 2017 and 2018 wildfires, including areas affected by power line-related fires across California.

To qualify for the payments, applicants’ primary residence must have been within the boundary of the 2017 Northern California wildfires or the 2018 Camp fire in Butte County. Applicants also must establish proof of identity and certify that they are not requesting payments for an expense already paid for by FEMA.

Applicants can find more information and apply for assistance at https://www.norcalwildfireassistanceprogram.com/. The deadline to file for aid is November 15, 2019.

The $105 million being provided by PG&E was made available from the company’s cash reserves. PG&E will not seek cost recovery from its customers, and its rates are set to stabilize in 2025 according to recent guidance.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada Net-Zero Electricity Buildout will double or triple power capacity, scaling clean energy, renewables, nuclear, hydro, and grid transmission, with faster permitting, Indigenous consultation, and trillions in investment to meet 2035 non-emitting regulations.

Key Points

A national plan to rapidly expand clean, non-emitting power and grid capacity to enable a net-zero economy by 2050.

✅ Double to triple generation; all sources non-emitting by 2035

✅ Accelerate permitting, transmission, and Indigenous partnerships

✅ Trillions in investment; cross-jurisdictional coordination

Canada must build more electricity generation in the next 25 years than it has over the last century in order to support a net-zero emissions economy by 2050, says a new report from the Public Policy Forum.

Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and shifting to emissions-free electricity, as provinces such as Ontario pursue new wind and solar to ease a supply crunch, to propel our cars, heat our homes and run our factories will require doubling — possibly tripling — the amount of power we make now, the federal government estimates.

"Imagine every dam, turbine, nuclear plant and solar panel across Canada and then picture a couple more next to them," said the report, which will be published Wednesday.

It's going to cost a lot, and in Ontario, greening the grid could cost $400 billion according to one report. Most estimates are in the trillions.

It's also going to require the kind of cross-jurisdictional co-operation, with lessons from Europe's power crisis underscoring the stakes, Indigenous consultation and swift decision-making and construction that Canada just isn't very good at, the report said.

"We have a date with destiny," said Edward Greenspon, president of the Public Policy Forum. "We need to build, build, build. We're way behind where we need to be and we don't have a lot of a lot of time remaining."

Later this summer, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault will publish new regulations to require that all power be generated from non-emitting sources by 2035 clean electricity goals, as proposed.

Greenspon said that means there are two major challenges ahead: massively expanding how much power we make and making all of it clean, even though some natural gas generation will be permitted under federal rules.

On average, it takes more than four years just to get a new electricity generating project approved by Ottawa, and more than three years for new transmission lines.

That's before a single shovel touches any dirt.

Building these facilities is another thing, and provinces such as Ontario face looming electricity shortfalls as projects drag on. The Site C dam in British Columbia won't come on line until 2025 and has been under construction since 2015. A new transmission line from northern Manitoba to the south took more than 11 years from the first proposal to operation.

"We need to move very quickly, and probably with a different approach ... no hurdles, no timeouts," Greenspon said.

There are significant unanswered questions about the new power mix, and the pace at which Canada moves away from fossil fuel power is one of the biggest political issues facing the country, with debates over whether scrapping coal-fired electricity is cost-effective still unresolved.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Canada Electrification Costs: report estimates $580B-$1.4T to scale renewable energy, wind, solar, and storage capacity to 2050, shifting from natural gas toward net-zero emissions and raising average household energy spending by $1,300-$3,200 annually.

Key Points

Projected national expense to expand renewables and electrify energy systems by 2050, impacting household energy bills.

✅ $580B-$1.4T forecast for 2020-2050 energy transition

✅ 278-422 GW wind, solar, storage capacity by 2050

✅ Household costs up $1,300-$3,200 per year on average

The Canadian Gas Association says building renewable electricity capacity to replace just half of Canada's current fossil fuel-generated energy, a shift with significant policy implications for grids across provinces, could increase national costs by as much as $1.4 trillion over the next 30 years.

In a report, it contends, echoing an IEA report on net-zero, that growing electricity's contribution to Canada's energy mix from its current 19 per cent to about 60 per cent, a step critical to meeting climate pledges that policymakers emphasize, will require an expansion from 141 gigawatts today to between 278 and 422 GW of renewable wind, solar and storage capacity by 2050.

It says that will increase national energy costs by between $580 billion and $1.4 trillion between 2020 and 2050, a projection consistent with recent reports of higher electricity prices in Alberta amid policy shifts, translating into an average increase in Canadian household spending of $1,300 to $3,200 per year.

The study, prepared by consulting firm ICF for the association, assumes electrification begins in 2020 and is applied in all feasible applications by 2050, with investments in the electricity system, guided by the implications of decarbonizing the grid for reliability and cost, proceeding as existing natural gas and electric end use equipment reaches normal end of life.

Association CEO Tim Egan says the numbers are "pretty daunting" and support the integration of natural gas with electric, amid Canada's race to net-zero commitments, instead of using an electric-only option as the most cost-efficient way for Canada to reach environmental policy goals.

But Keith Stewart, senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada, says scientists are calling for the world to get to net-zero emissions by 2050, and Canada's net-zero by 2050 target underscores that urgency to avoid "catastrophic" levels of warming, so investing in natural gas infrastructure to then shut it down seems a "very expensive option."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

US Utilities Shift From Coal as natural gas stays cheap, renewables like wind and solar scale, Clean Power Plan uncertainty lingers, and investors, state policies, and emissions targets drive generation choices and accelerate retirements.

Key Points

A long-term shift by utilities from coal to cheap natural gas, expanding renewables, and lower-emission generation.

✅ Cheap natural gas undercuts coal on price and flexibility.

✅ Renewables costs falling; wind and solar add competitive capacity.

✅ State policies and investors sustain emissions reductions.

When President Donald Trump signed an executive order last week to sweep away Obama-era climate change regulations, he said it would end America's "war on coal", usher in a new era of energy production and put miners back to work.

But the biggest consumers of U.S. coal - power generating companies - remain unconvinced about efforts to replace Obama's power plant overhaul with a lighter-touch approach.

Reuters surveyed 32 utilities with operations in the 26 states that sued former President Barack Obama's administration to block its Clean Power Plan, the main target of Trump's executive order. The bulk of them have no plans to alter their multi-billion dollar, years-long shift away from coal, suggesting demand for the fuel will keep falling despite Trump's efforts.

The utilities gave many reasons, mainly economic: Natural gas - coal’s top competitor - is cheap and abundant; solar and wind power costs are falling; state environmental laws remain in place; and Trump's regulatory rollback may not survive legal challenges, as rushed pricing changes draw warnings from energy groups.

Meanwhile, big investors aligned with the global push to fight climate change – such as the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund – have been pressuring U.S. utilities in which they own stakes to cut coal use.

"I’m not going to build new coal plants in today’s environment," said Ben Fowke, CEO of Xcel Energy, which operates in eight states and uses coal for about 36 percent of its electricity production. "And if I’m not going to build new ones, eventually there won’t be any."

Of the 32 utilities contacted by Reuters, 20 said Trump's order would have no impact on their investment plans; five said they were reviewing the implications of the order; six gave no response. Just one said it would prolong the life of some of its older coal-fired power units.

North Dakota's Basin Electric Power Cooperative was the sole utility to identify an immediate positive impact of Trump's order on the outlook for coal.

"We're in the situation where the executive order takes a lot of pressure off the decisions we had to make in the near term, such as whether to retrofit and retire older coal plants," said Dale Niezwaag, a spokesman for Basin Electric. "But Trump can be a one-termer, so the reprieve out there is short."

Trump's executive order triggered a review aimed at killing the Clean Power Plan and paving the way for the EPA's Affordable Clean Energy rule to replace it, though litigation is ongoing. The Obama-era law would have required states, by 2030, to collectively cut carbon emissions from existing power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels. It was designed as a primary strategy in U.S. efforts to fight global climate change.

The U.S. coal industry, without increases in domestic demand, would need to rely on export markets for growth. Shipments of U.S. metallurgical coal, used in the production of steel, have recently shown up in China following a two-year hiatus - in part to offset banned shipments from North Korea and temporary delays from cyclone-hit Australian producers.

RETIRING AND RETROFITTING

Coal had been the primary fuel source for U.S. power plants for the last century, but its use has fallen more than a third since 2008 after advancements in drilling technology unlocked new reserves of natural gas.

Hundreds of aging coal-fired power plants have been retired or retrofitted. Huge coal mining companies like Peabody Energy Corp and Arch Coal fell into bankruptcy, and production last year hit its lowest point since 1978.

The slide appears likely to continue: U.S. power companies now expect to retire or convert more than 8,000 megawatts of coal-fired plants in 2017 after shutting almost 13,000 MW last year, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration and Thomson Reuters data.

Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, acknowledged Trump's efforts would not return the coal industry to its "glory days," but offered some hope.

"There may not be immediate plans for utilities to bring on more coal, but the future is always uncertain in this market," he said.

Many of the companies in the Reuters survey said they had been focused on reducing carbon emissions for a decade or more while tracking 2017 utility trends that reinforce long-term planning, and were hesitant to change direction based on shifting political winds in Washington D.C.

"Utility planning typically takes place over much longer periods than presidential terms of office," Berkshire Hathaway Inc-owned Pacificorp spokesman Tom Gauntt said.

Several utilities also cited falling costs for wind and solar power, which are now often as cheap as coal or natural gas, thanks in part to government subsidies for renewable energy and recent FERC decisions affecting the grid.

In the meantime, activist investors have increased pressure on U.S. utilities to shun coal.

In the last year, Norway's sovereign wealth fund, the world's largest, has excluded more than a dozen U.S. power companies - including Xcel, American Electric Power Co Inc and NRG Energy Inc - from its investments because of their reliance on coal-fired power.

Another eight companies, including Southern Co and NorthWestern Corp, are "under observation" by the fund.

Wyoming-based coal miner Cloud Peak Energy said it doesn't blame utilities for being lukewarm to Trump's order.

"For eight years, if you were a utility running coal, you got the hell kicked out of you," said Richard Reavey, a spokesman for the company. "Are you going to turn around tomorrow and say, 'Let's buy lots of coal plants'? Pretty unlikely."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

UK Coal-Free Grid Streak highlights record hours without coal, as renewable energy, wind and solar boost electricity generation, cutting CO2 emissions, reducing fossil fuel reliance, and accelerating grid decarbonization amid volatile gas markets.

Key Points

It is the UKs longest coal-free power run, driven by renewables, signaling decarbonization and reduced gas reliance.

✅ Record-breaking hours of electricity with zero coal generation

✅ Enabled by wind, solar, and growing offshore wind capacity

✅ Highlights need to cut gas use and expand renewable investment

Today is the fourth the UK has entered with not a watt of electricity generated by coal.

It’s the longest such streak since the 1880s and comes only days after the last modern era coal-free power record of 55 hours was set.

That represents good news for those of us who have children and would rather like there to be a planet for them to live on when we’re gone.

Coal generated power is dirty power, and not just through the carbon that gets pumped into the atmosphere when it burns.

The fact that the UK is increasingly able to call upon cleaner alternatives for its requirements, to the extent that records are being regularly broken and coal's share has fallen to record lows, is a welcome development.

The trouble is one of those alternatives is gas, and while it is better than coal it still throws off CO2, among other pollutants. The UK’s use of it, for electricity generation and most of its heating, comes with the added disadvantage of leaving it in hock to volatile international markets and producers that aren’t always friendly.

It was only last month, with the country in the middle of a cold snap, that the Grid was issuing a deficit warning (its first in eight years).

As I wrote at the time, we need to burn less of the stuff as low-carbon progress stalled in 2019 shows, too.

As such, Greenpeace’s call for more investment in renewable energy technology and generation, including solar, onshore wind and offshore wind, which is making an increasing contribution as wind beat coal in 2016 demonstrated, was well made.

Those who complain about onshore wind farms, particularly when they are built in windy places that are pretty, seem willfully blind to the pollution caused by gas.

The need to be listened to less. So do those, like British Gas owner Centrica, that bellyache about green taxes.

It bears repeating that fossil fuels are subsidised still more. It’s just that the subsidies are typically hidden.

A report issued last year by a coalition of environmental organisations found the UK provided $972m (£695m) of annual financing for fossil fuels on average between 2013 and 2015, compared with $172m for renewable energy.

But while they come up with wildly varying amounts as a result of wildly varying approaches, the OECD, the IMF and the International Energy Agency have all quantified substantial subsidies for fossils fuels. Their annual estimates have ranged from $160bn to $5.3tn (yes you read that rate and the number was the IMF’s) globally.

So by all means celebrate coal free days, and a full week without coal power as milestones. But we need more of them more quickly and we need more renewable energy to pick up the slack. As such, the philosophy and approach of government needs to change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Methane Hydrate CO2 Sequestration uses carbon capture and nitrogen injection to swap gases in seafloor hydrates along the Gulf of Mexico, releasing methane for electricity while storing CO2, according to new simulation research.

Key Points

A method injecting CO2 and nitrogen into hydrates to store CO2 while releasing methane for power.

✅ Nitrogen aids CO2-methane swap in hydrate cages, speeding sequestration

✅ Gulf Coast proximity to emitters lowers transport and power costs

✅ Revenue from methane electricity could offset carbon capture

The world is quickly realizing it may need to actively pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to stave off the ill effects of climate change. Scientists and engineers have proposed various carbon capture techniques, but most would be extremely expensive—without generating any revenue. No one wants to foot the bill.

One method explored in the past decade might now be a step closer to becoming practical, as a result of a new computer simulation study. The process would involve pumping airborne CO2 down into methane hydrates—large deposits of icy water and methane right under the seafloor, beneath water 500 to 1,000 feet deep—where the gas would be permanently stored, or sequestered. The incoming CO2 would push out the methane, which would be piped to the surface and burned to generate electricity, whether sold locally or via exporters like Hydro-Que9bec to help defray costs, to power the sequestration operation or to bring in revenue to pay for it.

Many methane hydrate deposits exist along the Gulf of Mexico shore and other coastlines. Large power plants and industrial facilities that emit CO2 also line the Gulf Coast, where EPA power plant rules could shape deployment, so one option would be to capture the gas directly from nearby smokestacks, keeping it out of the atmosphere to begin with. And the plants and industries themselves could provide a ready market for the electricity generated.

A methane hydrate is a deposit of frozen, latticelike water molecules. The loose network has many empty, molecular-size pores, or “cages,” that can trap methane molecules rising through cracks in the rock below. The computer simulation shows that pushing out the methane with CO2 is greatly enhanced if a high concentration of nitrogen is also injected, and that the gas swap is a two-step process. (Nitrogen is readily available anywhere, because it makes up 78 percent of the earth’s atmosphere.) In one step the nitrogen enters the cages; this destabilizes the trapped methane, which escapes the cages. In a separate step, the nitrogen helps CO2 crystallize in the emptied cages. The disturbed system “tries to reach a new equilibrium; the balance goes to more CO2 and less methane,” says Kris Darnell, who led the study, published June 27 in the journal Water Resources Research. Darnell recently joined the petroleum engineering software company Novi Labs as a data scientist, after receiving his Ph.D. in geoscience from the University of Texas, where the study was done.

A group of labs, universities and companies had tested the technique in a limited feasibility trial in 2012 on Alaska’s North Slope, where methane hydrates form in sandstone under deep permafrost. They sent CO2 and nitrogen down a pipe into the hydrate. Some CO2 ended up being stored, and some methane was released up the same pipe. That is as far as the experiment was intended to go. “It’s good that Kris [Darnell] could make headway” from that experience, says Ray Boswell at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, who was one of the Alaska experiment leaders but was not involved in the new study. The new simulation also showed that the swap of CO2 for methane is likely to be much more extensive—and to happen quicker—if CO2 enters at one end of a hydrate deposit and methane is collected at a distant end.

The technique is somewhat similar in concept to one investigated in the early 2010s by Steven Bryant and others at the University of Texas. In addition to numerous methane hydrate deposits, the Gulf Coast has large pools of hot, salty brine in sedimentary rock under the coastline. In this system, pumps would send CO2 down into one end of a deposit, which would force brine into a pipe that is placed at the other end and leads back to the surface. There the hot brine would flow through a heat exchanger, where heat could be extracted and used for industrial processes or to generate electricity, supporting projects such as electrified LNG in some markets. The upwelling brine also contains some methane that could be siphoned off and burned. The CO2 dissolves into the underground brine, becomes dense and sinks further belowground, where it theoretically remains.

Either system faces big practical challenges, and building shared CO2 storage hubs to aggregate captured gas is still evolving. One is creating a concentrated flow of CO2; the gas makes up only .04 percent of air, and roughly 10 percent of the smokestack emission from a typical power plant or industrial facility. If an efficient methane hydrate or brine system requires an input that is 90 percent CO2, for example, concentrating the gas will require an enormous amount of energy—making the process very expensive. “But if you only need a 50 percent concentration, that could be more attractive,” says Bryant, who is now a professor of chemical and petroleum engineering at the University of Calgary. “You have to reduce the [CO2] capture cost.”

Another major challenge for the methane hydrate approach is how to collect the freed methane, which could simply seep out of the deposit through numerous cracks and in all directions. “What kind of well [and pipe] structure would you use to grab it?” Bryant asks.

Given these realities, there is little economic incentive today to use methane hydrates for sequestering CO2. But as concentrations rise in the atmosphere and the planet warms further, and as calls for an electric planet intensify, systems that could capture the gas and also provide energy or revenue to run the process might become more viable than techniques that simply pull CO2 from the air and lock it away, offering nothing in return.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News