Maryland grants for solar installations tapped out

Nuclear Waste Corrosion accelerates as stainless steel, glass, and ceramics interact in aqueous conditions, driving localized corrosion in repositories like Yucca Mountain, according to Nature Materials research on high-level radioactive waste storage.

Key Points

Degradation of waste forms and canisters from water-driven chemistry, causing accelerated, localized corrosion in storage.

✅ Stainless steel-glass contact triggers severe localized attack

✅ Ceramics and steel co-corrosion observed under aqueous conditions

✅ Yucca Mountain-like chemistry accelerates waste form degradation

The materials the United States and other countries plan to use to store high-level nuclear waste, even as utilities expand carbon-free electricity portfolios, will likely degrade faster than anyone previously knew because of the way those materials interact, new research shows.

The findings, published today in the journal Nature Materials (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-019-0579-x), show that corrosion of nuclear waste storage materials accelerates because of changes in the chemistry of the nuclear waste solution, and because of the way the materials interact with one another.

"This indicates that the current models may not be sufficient to keep this waste safely stored," said Xiaolei Guo, lead author of the study and deputy director of Ohio State's Center for Performance and Design of Nuclear Waste Forms and Containers, part of the university's College of Engineering. "And it shows that we need to develop a new model for storing nuclear waste."

Beyond waste storage, options like carbon capture technologies are being explored to reduce atmospheric CO2 alongside nuclear energy.

The team's research focused on storage materials for high-level nuclear waste -- primarily defense waste, the legacy of past nuclear arms production. The waste is highly radioactive. While some types of the waste have half-lives of about 30 years, others -- for example, plutonium -- have a half-life that can be tens of thousands of years. The half-life of a radioactive element is the time needed for half of the material to decay.

The United States currently has no disposal site for that waste; according to the U.S. General Accountability Office, it is typically stored near the nuclear power plants where it is produced. A permanent site has been proposed for Yucca Mountain in Nevada, though plans have stalled. Countries around the world have debated the best way to deal with nuclear waste; only one, Finland, has started construction on a long-term repository for high-level nuclear waste.

But the long-term plan for high-level defense waste disposal and storage around the globe is largely the same, even as the U.S. works to sustain nuclear power for decarbonization efforts. It involves mixing the nuclear waste with other materials to form glass or ceramics, and then encasing those pieces of glass or ceramics -- now radioactive -- inside metallic canisters. The canisters then would be buried deep underground in a repository to isolate it.

At the generation level, regulators are advancing EPA power plant rules on carbon capture to curb emissions while nuclear waste strategies evolve.

In this study, the researchers found that when exposed to an aqueous environment, glass and ceramics interact with stainless steel to accelerate corrosion, especially of the glass and ceramic materials holding nuclear waste.

In parallel, the electrical grid's reliance on SF6 insulating gas has raised warming concerns across Europe.

The study qualitatively measured the difference between accelerated corrosion and natural corrosion of the storage materials. Guo called it "severe."

"In the real-life scenario, the glass or ceramic waste forms would be in close contact with stainless steel canisters. Under specific conditions, the corrosion of stainless steel will go crazy," he said. "It creates a super-aggressive environment that can corrode surrounding materials."

To analyze corrosion, the research team pressed glass or ceramic "waste forms" -- the shapes into which nuclear waste is encapsulated -- against stainless steel and immersed them in solutions for up to 30 days, under conditions that simulate those under Yucca Mountain, the proposed nuclear waste repository.

Those experiments showed that when glass and stainless steel were pressed against one another, stainless steel corrosion was "severe" and "localized," according to the study. The researchers also noted cracks and enhanced corrosion on the parts of the glass that had been in contact with stainless steel.

Part of the problem lies in the Periodic Table. Stainless steel is made primarily of iron mixed with other elements, including nickel and chromium. Iron has a chemical affinity for silicon, which is a key element of glass.

The experiments also showed that when ceramics -- another potential holder for nuclear waste -- were pressed against stainless steel under conditions that mimicked those beneath Yucca Mountain, both the ceramics and stainless steel corroded in a "severe localized" way.

Other Ohio State researchers involved in this study include Gopal Viswanathan, Tianshu Li and Gerald Frankel.

This work was funded in part by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science.

Meanwhile, U.S. monitoring shows potent greenhouse gas declines confirming the impact of control efforts across the energy sector.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Sycamore Energy Manitoba Hydro Lawsuit centers on alleged mismanagement of the solar rebate incentive program, project delays, inspection backlogs, and alleged customer interference, impacting renewable energy installations, contractors, and clean power investment across Manitoba.

Key Points

Claim alleging mismanagement of Manitoba's solar rebate, delays, and inducing customers to switch installers.

✅ Lawsuit alleges mismanaged solar rebate incentive program

✅ Delays in inspections left hundreds of projects incomplete

✅ Claims Hydro urged customers to switch installers for rebates

Sycamore Energy filed a statement of claim Monday in Manitoba Court of Queens Bench against Manitoba Hydro saying it badly mismanaged its Solar Energy Program, a dispute that comes as Canada's solar progress faces criticism nationwide.

The claim also noted the crown corporation caused significant financial and reputational damage to Sycamore Energy, echoing disputes like Ontario wind cancellation costs seen elsewhere.

The statement of claim says Manitoba Hydro was telling customers to find other companies to complete solar panel installations, even as Nova Scotia's solar charge debate has unfolded.

'I'm still waiting': dozens of Manitoba solar system installations in the queue under expired incentive program
This all comes after a pilot project was launched in the province in April 2016, which would allow people to apply for a rebate under the incentive program, while Saskatchewan adjusted solar credits in parallel, and the project would cover about 25 per cent of the installation costs.

The project ended in April 2018, but hundreds of approved projects had yet to be finished.

According to Manitoba Hydro, in November there were 252 approved projects awaiting completion by more than one contractor, and Sycamore Energy said it had about 100 of those projects, a dynamic seen as New England's solar growth strains grid upgrades in other regions.

At the time Sycamore Energy COO, Alex Stuart, blamed Manitoba Hydro for the delays, stating it took too long to get inspections after solar systems were installed.

Scott Powell, Manitoba Hydro’s director of corporate communications, said in November he disagreed with Sycamore Energy’s comments, even as Ontario moves to reintroduce renewables elsewhere.

In a news release, the company said it sold more installations under Manitoba Hydro’s Solar Energy Program compared to other companies and it was instrumental in helping set up standards for the program.

“Manitoba Hydro mismanaged the solar rebate program from the beginning. In the end, they targeted our company unfairly and unlawfully by inducing our customers to break their contracts with us. Manitoba Hydro told our customers they could get an extension to their rebate but only if they switched to different installers,” said Justin Phillips, CEO of Sycamore Energy in a news release.

“We would much rather be installing clean, effective solar power projects for our customers right now. The last thing we want to do is to be suing Manitoba Hydro, but we feel we have no choice. Their actions have cost us millions in lost business. They’ve also cost the province jobs, millions in private investment and a positive way forward to help combat climate change.”

Manitoba Hydro now has 20 days to respond to the action, and a recent Cornwall wind-farm ruling underscores the stakes.

When asked for a response from CTV News, a spokesperson for the Crown corporation said it hadn’t yet been made aware of the suit.

“If a statement of claim is filed and served, we’ll file a statement of defence in due course. As this matter is now apparently before the courts, we have no further comment,” the spokesperson said.

None of these allegations have been proven in court.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Site C Dam Update outlines hydroelectric budget overruns, geotechnical risks, COVID-19 construction delays, BC Hydro timelines, cancellation costs, and First Nations treaty rights concerns affecting renewable energy, ratepayers, and Peace Valley impacts.

Key Points

Overview of Site C costs, delays, geotechnical risks, and concerns shaping BC Hydro hydroelectric plans.

✅ Cost to cancel estimated at least $10B

✅ Final budget now about $16B; completion pushed to 2025

✅ COVID-19 and geotechnical risks drove delays and redesigns

The cost to cancel a massive B.C. energy development project would be at least $10 billion, provincial officials revealed in an update on the future of Site C.

Thus the project will go ahead, Premier John Horgan and Energy Minister Bruce Ralston announced Friday, but with an increased budget and timeline.

Horgan and Ralston spoke at a news conference in Victoria about the findings of a status report into the hydroelectric dam project in northeastern B.C.

Peter Milburn, former deputy finance minister, finished the report earlier this year, but the findings were not initially made public.

$10B more than initial estimate
On Friday, it was announced that the project's final price tag has once again ballooned by billions of dollars.

Site C was initially estimated to cost $6 billion, and the first approved budget, back in 2014, was $8.775 billion. The budget increased to $10.8 billion in 2018.

But the latest update suggests it will cost about $16 billion in total.

And, in addition to a higher budget, the date of completion has been pushed back to 2025 – a year later than the initial target.

Among the reasons for the revisions, according to the province, is the impact of COVID-19. While officials did not get into details, there have been multiple cases of the disease publicly reported at Site C work camps.

Additionally, fewer workers were permitted on site to allow for physical distancing, and construction was scaled back.

Also cited as a cause for the increased cost were "unforeseeable" geotechnical issues at the site, which required installation of an enhanced drainage system.

Speaking to reporters Friday, the premier deflected blame.

“Managing the contract the BC Liberals signed has been difficult because it transfers the vast majority of the geotechnical risk back to BC Hydro,” said Horgan.

Former Premier Christy Clark vowed to get the project to a point of no return, and in 2017 the NDP decided to continue with the project because of the cost of cancelling it.

The Liberals now say the clean energy project should continue, but deny they shoulder any of the blame.

“Someone has to take ownership – and it's got to be government in power,” said MLA Tom Shypitka, BC Liberal critic for energy. 

There are also several reviews underway, including how to change contractor schedules to reflect delays and potential cost impacts from COVID-19, and how to keep the work environment safe during the pandemic.

A total of 17 recommendations were made in Milburn's report, all of which have been accepted by BC Hydro and the province.

Among these recommendations is a restructured project assurance board with a focus on skill-specific membership and autonomy from BC Hydro.

Cost of cancelling the project
The report looked into whether it would be better to scrap the project altogether, but the cost of cancelling it at this point would be at least $10 billion, Horgan and Ralston said.

That cost does not include replacing lost energy and capacity that Site C's electricity would have provided, according to the province.

A study conducted in 2019 suggested B.C. will need to double its electricity production by 2055, especially as drought conditions are forcing BC Hydro to adapt power generation. 

The NDP government says the cost to ratepayers of cancelling the project would be $216 a year for 10 years. Going forward will still have a cost, but instead, that payment will be split over more than 70 years, the estimated lifetime of Site C, meaning BC Hydro customers will pay about $36 more a year once the site goes live, the NDP says, even as cryptocurrency mining raises questions about electricity use.

“We will not put jobs at risk; we will not shock people's hydro bills,” said Horgan.

"Our government has taken this situation very seriously, and with the advice of independent experts guiding us, I am confident in the path forward for Site C," Ralston said.

"B.C. needs more renewable energy to bridge the electricity gap with Alberta and electrify our economy, transition away from fossil fuels and meet our climate targets."

The minister said the site is currently employing about 4,500 people.

Arguments against Site C
While there are benefits to the project, there has also been vocal opposition.

In a statement released following the announcement that the project would go ahead, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs suggested the decision violated the premier's commitment to a UN declaration.

"The Site C dam has never had the free, prior and informed consent of all impacted First Nations, and proceeding with the project is a clear infringement of the treaty rights of the West Moberly First Nation," the UBCIC's secretary treasurer said.

Kukpi7 Judy Wilson said the UN's Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has called for a suspension of the project until it has the consent of Indigenous peoples.

"B.C. did not even attempt to engage First Nations about the safety risks associated with the stability of the dam in the recent reviews," she said.

"It is unfathomable that such clear human rights violations are somehow OK by this government."

Chief Roland Wilson of the West Moberly First Nation said he was disappointed the province didn’t consult his and other communities prior to making this announcement. In an interview with CTV News, he said he was offered an opportunity to join a call this morning.

“We signed a treaty in 1814,” he said. “Our treaty rights are being trampled on.”

Wilson said his nation has ongoing concerns about safety issues and the plans to flood the Peace Valley. West Moberly is in a bitter court battle with the province.

At the BC Legislature, Green Party Leader Sonia Furstenau slammed the government’s decision.

“It is an astonishingly terrible business case in any circumstances, but considering that we lose the agricultural land, the biodiversity, the traditional treaty lands of Treaty 8, this is particularly catastrophic,” she told reporters.

She went on to accuse the NDP government of keeping bad news from the public. She alleged the NDP knew of serious problems before last fall’s unscheduled election, but chose not to release information.

Prior to the decision former BC Hydro president and a former federal fisheries minister are among those who added their voices to calls to halt work on the dam.

They were among 18 Canadians who wrote an open letter to the province calling for an independent team of experts to explore geotechnical problems at the site.

In the letter, signed in September, the group that also included Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the UBCIC wrote that going ahead would be a "costly and potentially catastrophic mistake." 

According to Friday's update, independent experts have confirmed the site is safe, though improvements have been recommended to enhance oversight and risk management.

Earlier in the project, a B.C. First Nation claimed it was a $1-billion treaty violation, though an agreement was reached in 2020 after the province promised to improve land management and restore traditional place names in areas of cultural significance.

The Prophet River First Nation will also receive payments while the site is operating, and some Crown land will be transferred to the nation as part of the agreement. 

Additionally, residents of a tiny community not far from the site is suing the province over two slow-moving landslides they claim caused property values to plummet.

Nearly three dozen residents of Old Fort are behind the allegations of negligence and breach of their charter right to security of person. The claim is tied to two landslides, in 2018 and 2020, that the group alleges were caused by ground destabilization from construction related to Site C.

One of the landslides damaged the only road into the community, leaving residents under evacuation for a month.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Minnesota Electric Cooperatives are driving grid innovation with smart meters, time-of-use pricing, demand response, and energy storage, including iron-air batteries, to manage peak loads, integrate wind and solar, and cut costs for rural members.

Key Points

Member-owned utilities piloting load management, meters, and storage to integrate wind and solar, cutting peak demand.

✅ Time-of-use pricing pilots lower bills and shift peak load.

✅ Iron-air battery tests add multi-day, low-cost energy storage.

✅ Smart meters enable demand response across rural co-ops.

Minnesota electric cooperatives have quietly emerged as laboratories for clean grid innovation, outpacing investor-owned utilities on smart meter installations, time-based pricing pilots, and experimental battery storage solutions.

“Co-ops have innovation in their DNA,” said David Ranallo, a spokesperson for Great River Energy, a generation and distribution cooperative that supplies power to 28 member utilities — making it one of the state’s largest co-op players.

Minnesota farmers helped pioneer the electric co-op model more than a century ago, similar to modern community-generated green electricity initiatives, pooling resources to build power lines, transformers and other equipment to deliver power to rural parts of the state. Today, 44 member-owned electric co-ops serve about 1.7 million rural and suburban customers and supply almost a quarter of the state’s electricity.

Co-op utilities have by many measures lagged on clean energy. Many still rely on electricity from coal-fired power plants. They’ve used political clout with rural lawmakers to oppose new pollution regulations and climate legislation, and some have tried to levy steep fees on customers who install solar panels.

Where they are emerging as innovators is with new models and technology for managing electric grid loads — from load-shifting water heaters to a giant experimental battery made of iron. The programs are saving customers money by delaying the need for expensive new infrastructure, and also showing ways to unlock more value from cheap but variable wind and solar power.

Unlike investor-owned utilities, “we have no incentive to invest in new generation,” said Darrick Moe, executive director of the Minnesota Rural Electric Association. Curbing peak energy demand has a direct financial benefit for members.

Minnesota electric cooperatives have launched dozens of programs, such as the South Metro solar project, in recent years aimed at reducing energy use and peak loads, in particular. They include:

Cost calculations are the primary driver for electric cooperatives’ recent experimentation, and a lighter regulatory structure and evolving electricity market reforms have allowed them to act more quickly than for-profit utilities.

“Co-ops and [municipal utilities] can act a lot more nimbly compared to investor-owned utilities … which have to go through years of proceedings and discussions about cost-recovery,” said Gabe Chan, a University of Minnesota associate professor who has researched electric co-ops extensively. Often, approval from a local board is all that’s required to launch a venture.

Great River Energy’s programs, which are rebranded and sold through member co-ops, yielded more than 101 million kilowatt-hours of savings last year — enough to power 9,500 homes for a year.

Beyond lowering costs for participants and customers at large, the energy-saving and behavior-changing programs sometimes end up being cited as case studies by larger utilities considering similar offerings. Advocates supporting a proposal by the city of Minneapolis and CenterPoint Energy to allow residents to pay for energy efficiency improvements on their utility bills through distributed energy rebates used several examples from cooperatives.

Despite the pace of innovation on load management, electric cooperatives have been relatively slow to transition from coal-fired power. More than half of Great River Energy’s electricity came from coal last year, and Dairyland Power, another major power wholesaler for Minnesota co-ops, generated 70% of its energy from coal. Meanwhile, Xcel Energy, the state’s largest investor-owned utility, has already reduced coal to about 20% of its energy mix.

The transition to cleaner power for some co-ops has been slowed by long-term contracts with power suppliers that have locked them into dirty power. Others have also been stalled by management or boards that have been resistant to change. John Farrell, director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s Energy Democracy program, said generalizing co-ops is difficult. 

“We’ve seen some co-ops that have got 75-year contracts for coal, that are invested in coal mines and using their newsletter to deny climate change,” he said. “Then you see a lot of them doing really amazing things like creating energy storage systems … and load balancing [programs], because they are unique and locally managed and can have that freedom to experiment without having to go through a regulatory process.”

Great River Energy, for its part, says it intends to reach 54% renewable generation by 2025, while some communities, like Frisco, Colorado, are targeting 100% clean electricity by specific dates. Its members recently voted to sell North Dakota’s largest coal plant, but the arrangement involves members continuing to buy power from the new owners for another decade.

The cooperative’s path to clean power could become clearer if its experimental iron-air battery project is successful. The project, the first of its kind in the country, is expected to be completed by 2023.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Texas Proposition 7 Energy Fund will finance ERCOT grid reliability via loans and grants for new on-demand natural gas plants, maintenance, and modernization, administered by the Public Utility Commission of Texas after Winter Storm Uri.

Key Points

State-managed fund providing loans and grants to expand and upgrade ERCOT power generation for grid reliability.

✅ $7.2B incentives for new dispatchable plants in ERCOT

✅ Administered by Public Utility Commission of Texas

✅ Aims to prevent outages like Winter Storm Uri

Texans are set to vote on Tuesday on a constitutional amendment to determine whether the state will create a special fund for financing the "construction, maintenance, and modernization of its electric generating facilities."

The energy fund would be administered and used only by the Public Utility Commission of Texas to provide loans and grants to maintain and upgrade electric generating facilities and improve electricity reliability across the state.

The biggest chunk of the fund, $7.2 billion, would go into loans and incentives to build new power-generating facilities in the ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas) region, where ERCOT has issued an RFP for winter capacity to address seasonal concerns.

The proposal, titled Proposition 7, is one of several electricity market reforms under consideration by lawmakers and regulators in Texas to avoid another energy crisis like the one caused by a deadly winter storm in February 2021.

That storm, known as Winter Storm Uri, left millions without power, water and heat for days as ERCOT struggled to prevent a grid collapse after the shutdown of an unusually large amount of generation, and bailout proposals soon surfaced in the Legislature as the market reeled.

Pablo Vegas, president and CEO of ERCOT, emphasized the grid has become more “volatile” given the current resources, as the Texas power grid faces recurring challenges.

“The complexities of managing a growing demand, and a very dynamic load environment with those types of resources becomes more and more challenging,” Vegas said Tuesday during a meeting of the ERCOT board of directors.

Vegas said one solution to overcome the challenge is investing in power production that is available on demand, like power plants fueled by natural gas. Those plants can help during times when the need for electricity strains the supply.

“With the passing of Proposition 7 on the ballot this November, we’ll see those incentives combined to incentivize a more balanced development strategy going forward,” Vegas told board members.

If Proposition 7 is passed by voters, it would enact S.B. 2627, which establishes an advisory committee to oversee the fund and the various projects it could be used for, amid severe-heat blackout risks that affect the broader U.S. $5 billion would be transferred from the General Revenue Fund to the Texas Energy Fund if Proposition 7 passes.

Opposition for Proposition 7 comes from the Lone Star chapter of the Sierra Club, an environmental organization based in Austin and which has issued a statement on Gov. Abbott's demands regarding grid policy. Cyrus Reed, conservation director of the Lone Star chapter, said the Texas energy fund is slated to benefit private utilities to build gas plants using taxpayer’s money.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Duke Energy Clean Energy Strategy advances renewables, battery storage, grid modernization, and energy efficiency to cut carbon, retire coal, and target net-zero by 2050 across the Carolinas with robust IRPs and capital investments.

Key Points

Plan to expand renewables, storage, and grid upgrades to cut carbon and reach net-zero electricity by 2050.

✅ 56B investment in renewables, storage, and grid modernization

✅ Targets 50% carbon reduction by 2030 and net-zero by 2050

✅ Retires coal units; expands energy efficiency and IRPs

Duke Energy says that the company will continue advancing its ambitious clean energy goals without the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) by investing in renewables, battery storage, energy efficiency programs and grid projects that support U.S. electrification efforts.

Duke Energy, the nation's largest electric utility, unveils its new logo. (PRNewsFoto/Duke Energy) (PRNewsfoto/Duke Energy)

Duke Energy's $56 billion capital investment plan will deliver significant customer benefits and create jobs at a time when policymakers at all levels are looking for ways to rebuild the economy in 2020 and beyond. These investments will deliver cleaner energy for customers and communities while enhancing the energy grid to provide greater reliability and resiliency.

"Sustainability and the reduction of carbon emissions are closely tied to our region's success," said Lynn Good, Duke Energy Chair, President and CEO. "In our recent Climate Report, we shared a vision of a cleaner electricity future with an increasing focus on renewables and battery storage in addition to a diverse mix of zero-carbon nuclear, natural gas, hydro and energy efficiency programs.

"Achieving this clean energy vision will require all of us working together to develop a plan that is smart, equitable and ensures the reliability and affordability that will spur economic growth in the region. While we're disappointed that we're not able to move forward with ACP, we will continue exploring ways to help our customers and communities, particularly in eastern North Carolina where the need is great," said Good.

Already a clean-energy leader, Duke Energy has reduced its carbon emissions by 39% from 2005 and remains on track to cut its carbon emissions by at least 50% by 2030, as peers like Alliant's carbon-neutral plan demonstrate broader industry momentum toward decarbonization. The company also has an ambitious clean energy goal of reaching net-zero emissions from electricity generation by 2050. 

In September 2020, Duke Energy plans to file its Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) for the Carolinas after an extensive process of working with the state's leaders, policymakers, customers and other stakeholders. The IRPs will include multiple scenarios to support a path to a cleaner energy future in the Carolinas, reflecting key utility trends shaping resource planning.

Since 2010, Duke Energy has retired 51 coal units totaling more than 6,500 megawatts (MW) and plans to retire at least an additional 900 MW by the end of 2024. In 2019, the company proposed to shorten the book lives of another approximately 7,700 MW of coal capacity in North Carolina and Indiana.

Duke Energy will host an analyst call in early August 2020 to discuss second quarter 2020 financial results and other business and financial updates. The company will also host its inaugural Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investor day in October 2020.

Duke Energy

Duke Energy is transforming its customers' experience, modernizing the energy grid, generating cleaner energy and expanding natural gas infrastructure to create a smarter energy future for the people and communities it serves. The Electric Utilities and Infrastructure unit's regulated utilities serve 7.8 million retail electric customers in six states: North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky. The Gas Utilities and Infrastructure unit distributes natural gas to 1.6 million customers in five states: North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio and Kentucky. The Duke Energy Renewables unit operates wind and solar generation facilities across the U.S., as well as energy storage and microgrid projects.

Duke Energy was named to Fortune's 2020 "World's Most Admired Companies" list and Forbes' "America's Best Employers" list. More information about the company is available at duke-energy.com. The Duke Energy News Center contains news releases, fact sheets, photos, videos and other materials. Duke Energy's illumination features stories about people, innovations, community topics and environmental issues. Follow Duke Energy on Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook.

Forward-Looking Information

This document includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements are based on management's beliefs and assumptions and can often be identified by terms and phrases that include "anticipate," "believe," "intend," "estimate," "expect," "continue," "should," "could," "may," "plan," "project," "predict," "will," "potential," "forecast," "target," "guidance," "outlook" or other similar terminology. Various factors may cause actual results to be materially different than the suggested outcomes within forward-looking statements; accordingly, there is no assurance that such results will be realized. These factors include, but are not limited to:

• The impact of the COVID-19 electricity demand shift on operations and revenues;
• State, federal and foreign legislative and regulatory initiatives, including costs of compliance with existing and future environmental requirements, including those related to climate change, as well as rulings that affect cost and investment recovery or have an impact on rate structures or market prices;
• The extent and timing of costs and liabilities to comply with federal and state laws, regulations and legal requirements related to coal ash remediation, including amounts for required closure of certain ash impoundments, are uncertain and difficult to estimate;
• The ability to recover eligible costs, including amounts associated with coal ash impoundment retirement obligations and costs related to significant weather events, and to earn an adequate return on investment through rate case proceedings and the regulatory process;
• The costs of decommissioning nuclear facilities could prove to be more extensive than amounts estimated and all costs may not be fully recoverable through the regulatory process;
• Costs and effects of legal and administrative proceedings, settlements, investigations and claims;
• Industrial, commercial and residential growth or decline in service territories or customer bases resulting from sustained downturns of the economy and the economic health of our service territories or variations in customer usage patterns, including energy efficiency and demand response efforts and use of alternative energy sources, such as self-generation and distributed generation technologies;
• Federal and state regulations, laws and other efforts designed to promote and expand the use of energy efficiency measures and distributed generation technologies, such as private solar and battery storage, in Duke Energy service territories could result in customers leaving the electric distribution system, excess generation resources as well as stranded costs;
• Advancements in technology;
• Additional competition in electric and natural gas markets and continued industry consolidation;
• The influence of weather and other natural phenomena on operations, including the economic, operational and other effects of severe storms, hurricanes, droughts, earthquakes and tornadoes, including extreme weather associated with climate change;
• The ability to successfully operate electric generating facilities and deliver electricity to customers including direct or indirect effects to the company resulting from an incident that affects the U.S. electric grid or generating resources;
• The ability to obtain the necessary permits and approvals and to complete necessary or desirable pipeline expansion or infrastructure projects in our natural gas business;
• Operational interruptions to our natural gas distribution and transmission activities;
• The availability of adequate interstate pipeline transportation capacity and natural gas supply;
• The impact on facilities and business from a terrorist attack, cybersecurity threats, data security breaches, operational accidents, information technology failures or other catastrophic events, such as fires, explosions, pandemic health events or other similar occurrences;
• The inherent risks associated with the operation of nuclear facilities, including environmental, health, safety, regulatory and financial risks, including the financial stability of third-party service providers;
• The timing and extent of changes in commodity prices and interest rates and the ability to recover such costs through the regulatory process, where appropriate, and their impact on liquidity positions and the value of underlying assets;
• The results of financing efforts, including the ability to obtain financing on favorable terms, which can be affected by various factors, including credit ratings, interest rate fluctuations, compliance with debt covenants and conditions and general market and economic conditions;
• Credit ratings of the Duke Energy Registrants may be different from what is expected;
• Declines in the market prices of equity and fixed-income securities and resultant cash funding requirements for defined benefit pension plans, other post-retirement benefit plans and nuclear decommissioning trust funds;
• Construction and development risks associated with the completion of the Duke Energy Registrants' capital investment projects, including risks related to financing, obtaining and complying with terms of permits, meeting construction budgets and schedules and satisfying operating and environmental performance standards, as well as the ability to recover costs from customers in a timely manner, or at all;
• Changes in rules for regional transmission organizations, including FERC debates on coal and nuclear subsidies and new and evolving capacity markets, and risks related to obligations created by the default of other participants;
• The ability to control operation and maintenance costs;
• The level of creditworthiness of counterparties to transactions;
• The ability to obtain adequate insurance at acceptable costs;
• Employee workforce factors, including the potential inability to attract and retain key personnel;
• The ability of subsidiaries to pay dividends or distributions to Duke Energy Corporation holding company (the Parent);
• The performance of projects undertaken by our nonregulated businesses and the success of efforts to invest in and develop new opportunities;
• The effect of accounting pronouncements issued periodically by accounting standard-setting bodies;
• The impact of U.S. tax legislation to our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows and our credit ratings;
• The impacts from potential impairments of goodwill or equity method investment carrying values; and
• The ability to implement our business strategy, including enhancing existing technology systems.
• Additional risks and uncertainties are identified and discussed in the Duke Energy Registrants' reports filed with the SEC and available at the SEC's website at sec.gov. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the events described in the forward-looking statements might not occur or might occur to a different extent or at a different time than described. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made and the Duke Energy Registrants expressly disclaim an obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News