Transmission line hearing generates praise, concerns

California Gas Plant Extensions keep Ormond Beach, AES Alamitos, and Huntington Beach on standby for grid reliability during heat waves, as regulators balance renewables, battery storage, and power, pending State Water Resources Control Board approval.

Key Points

State plan extending three coastal gas plants to 2026, adding capacity as California expands renewables and storage.

✅ Extends Ormond Beach, AES Alamitos, AES Huntington Beach

✅ Mitigates blackout risk during extreme heat and peak demand

✅ Pending State Water Resources Control Board approval

Temperatures in many California cities are cooling down this week, but a debate is simmering on how to generate enough electricity to power the state through extreme weather events while transitioning away from a reliance on fossil fuels as clean energy progress indicates statewide.

The California Energy Commission voted Wednesday to extend the life of three gas power plants along the state’s southern coast through 2026, even as natural-gas electricity records persist nationwide, postponing a shutoff deadline previously set for the end of this year. The vote would keep the decades-old facilities _ Ormond Beach Generating Station, AES Alamitos and AES Huntington Beach — open so they can run during emergencies.

The state is at a greater risk of blackouts during major events when many Californians simultaneously crank up their air conditioning, such as a blistering heat wave, illustrated by widespread utility shutoffs in recent years.

“We need to move faster in incorporating renewable energy. We need to move faster at incorporating battery storage. We need to build out chargers faster,” commissioner Patricia Monahan said amid an ongoing debate over the classification of nuclear power in California. “We’re working with all the energy institutions to do that, but we are not there yet.”

The plan, put together by the state’s Department of Water Resources, still needs final approval from the State Water Resources Control Board, which may vote on the issue next week. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation last year creating an energy reserve the state could use as a last resort if there is likely to be an energy shortage, a challenge mirrored by Ontario electricity shortfall concerns elsewhere. The law allowed the Department of Water Resources to fund or secure power sources in those instances, after PG&E shutdown reasons drew attention to grid vulnerabilities.

The commission acknowledged it was a difficult decision. Environmentalists say the state needs to transition to more short- and long-term solutions that will help it move away from fossil fuels and to rely more on renewable energy sources like solar and wind, similar to Ontario's clean power push in recent years. They’re also concerned about the health impacts associated with pollution from gas plants.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nova Scotia Power Rate Regulation explains how the privately owned utility is governed by the Utility Review Board, limiting government authority, while COVID-19 relief measures include suspended disconnections, waived fees, payment plans, and emergency assistance.

Key Points

URB oversight where the board, not the province, sets power rates, with COVID-19 relief pausing disconnections and fees.

✅ Province lacks authority to order rate cuts

✅ URB regulates Nova Scotia Power rates

✅ Relief: no disconnections, waived fees, payment plans

The province can't ask Nova Scotia Power to lower its rates to ease the financial pressure on out-of-work residents because it lacks the authority to take that kind of action, even as the Nova Scotia regulator approved a 14% hike in a separate proceeding, the provincial energy minister said Thursday.

Derek Mombourquette said he is in "constant contact" with the privately owned utility.

"The conversations are ongoing with Nova Scotia Power," he said after a cabinet meeting.

When asked if the Liberal government would order the utility to lower electricity rates as households and businesses struggle with the financial fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic, Mombourquette said there was nothing he could do.

"We don't have the regulatory authority as a government to reduce the rates," he told reporters during a conference call.

"They're independent, and they are regulated through the (Nova Scotia Utility Review Board). My conversations with Nova Scotia Power essentially have been to do whatever they can to support Nova Scotians, whether it's residents or businesses in this very difficult time."

Asked if the board would take action, the minister said: "I'm not aware of that," despite the premier's appeals to regulators in separate rate cases.

However, the minister noted that the utility, owned by Emera Inc., has suspended disconnections for bill non-payment for at least 90 days, a step similar to reconnection efforts by Hydro One announced in Ontario.

It has also relaxed payment timelines and waived penalties and fees, while some jurisdictions offered lump-sum credits to help with bills.

Nova Scotia Power CEO Wayne O'Connor has also said the company is making additional donations to a fund available to help low-income individuals and families pay their energy bills.

In late March, Ontario cut electricity rates for residential consumers, farms and small businesses in response to a surge in people forced to work from home as a result of the pandemic, alongside bill support measures for ratepayers.

Premier Doug Ford said there would be a 45-day switch to off-peak rates, later moving to a recovery rate framework, which meant electricity consumers would be paying the lowest rate possible at any time of day.

The change was expected to cost the province about $162 million.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. Hybrid Vehicle Sales Outlook highlights rising hybrid demand as an EV bridge, driven by emissions rules, range anxiety, charging infrastructure gaps, and automaker strategies from Ford, Toyota, and Stellantis across U.S. markets.

Key Points

Forecast of U.S. hybrid sales shaped by EV adoption, emissions rules, charging access, and automaker strategies.

✅ S&P sees hybrids at 24% of U.S. sales by 2028

✅ Bridges ICE to EV amid range and charging concerns

✅ Ford, Toyota, Stellantis expand U.S. hybrid lineups

Hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles may not be dying as fast as some predicted in the auto sector’s rush to develop all-electric models.

Ford Motor is the latest of several top automakers, including Toyota and Stellantis, planning to build and sell hundreds of thousands of hybrid vehicles in the U.S. over the next five years, industry forecasters told Reuters.

The companies are pitching hybrids as an alternative for retail and commercial customers who are seeking more sustainable transportation, but may not be ready to make the leap to a full electric vehicle.

"Hybrids really serve a lot of America," said Tim Ghriskey, senior portfolio strategist at New York-based investment manager Ingalls & Snyder. "Hybrid is a great alternative to a pure electric vehicle (and) it's an easier sell to a lot of customers."

Interest in hybrids is rebounding as consumer demand for pure electrics has not accelerated as quickly as expected, with EV market share dipping in Q1 2024 according to some analyses. Surveys cite a variety of reasons for tepid EV demand, from high initial cost and concerns about range to lengthy charging times and a shortage of public charging infrastructure in many regions.

“With the tightening of emissions requirements, hybrids provide a cleaner fleet without requiring buyers to take the leap into pure electrics,” said Sam Fiorani, vice president at AutoForecast Solutions.

S&P Global Mobility estimates hybrids will more than triple over the next five years, accounting for 24% of U.S. new vehicle sales in 2028. Sales of pure electrics will claim about 37%, supported by strong U.S. EV sales into 2024 momentum, leaving combustion vehicles — including so-called “mild” hybrids — with a nearly 40% share.

S&P estimates hybrids will account for just 7% of U.S. sales this year, and pure electrics 9%, underscoring that EV sales still lag gas cars as internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles take more than 80%.

Historically, hybrids have accounted for less than 10% of total U.S. sales, with Toyota’s long-running Prius among the most popular models. The Japanese automaker has consistently said hybrids will play a key role in the company's long-range electrification plans as it slowly ramps up investment in pure EVs.

Ford is the latest to roll out more aggressive hybrid plans. On its second-quarter earnings call in late July, Chief Executive Jim Farley surprised analysts, saying Ford expects to quadruple its hybrid sales over the next five years after earlier promising an aggressive push into all-electric vehicles.

“This transition to EVs will be dynamic,” Farley told analysts. “We expect the EV market to remain volatile until the winners and losers shake out.”

Among Ford’s competitors, General Motors appears to have little interest in hybrids in the U.S., while Stellantis will follow Toyota and Ford’s hedge by offering U.S. buyers a choice of different powertrains, including hybrids, until sales of pure electric vehicles start to take off after mid-decade, a potential EV inflection point according to forecaster GlobalData.

In a statement, GM said it, echoing leadership's view that EVs won't go mainstream until key issues are addressed, "continues to be committed to its all-electric future ... While we will have hybrid vehicles in our global fleet, our focus remains on transitioning our portfolio to electric by 2030.”

Stellantis said hybrids now account for 36% of Jeep Wrangler sales and 19% of Chrysler Pacifica sales. In addition to new pure electric models coming soon, "we are very bullish on hybrids going forward," a spokesperson said.

This year, manufacturers are marketing more than 60 hybrids in the U.S. Toyota and its premium Lexus brand are selling at least 18 different hybrid models, enabling the Japanese automaker to maintain its stranglehold on the sector.

Hyundai and sister brand Kia offer seven hybrid models, with Ford and Lincoln six. Stellantis offers just three, and GM’s sole entry, due out later this year, is a hybrid version of the Chevrolet Corvette sports car.

But hybrids remain in short supply at many U.S. dealerships.

Andrew DiFeo, dealer principal at Hyundai of St. Augustine, south of Jacksonville, FL, doesn't see EV adoption hitting the levels the Biden administration wants until EV charging networks are as ubiquitous as gas stations.

"Hybrids are a great bridge to whatever the future holds,” said DiFeo, adding, “I've got zero in stock (and) I've got customers that want all of them."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure 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

CCUS in the U.S. Power Sector drives investments as DOE grants, 45Q tax credits, and EPA carbon rules spur carbon capture, geologic storage, and utilization, while debates persist over costs, transparency, reliability, and emissions safeguards.

Key Points

CCUS captures CO2 from power plants for storage or use, backed by 45Q tax credits, DOE funding, and EPA carbon rules.

✅ DOE grants and 45Q credits aim to de-risk project economics.

✅ EPA rules may require capture rates to meet emissions limits.

✅ Transparency and MRV guard against tax credit abuse.

New public and private funding, including DOE $110M for CCUS announced recently, and expected strong federal power plant emissions reduction standards have accelerated electricity sector investments in carbon capture, utilization and storage,’ or CCUS, projects but some worry it is good money thrown after bad.

CCUS separates carbon from a fossil fuel-burning power plant’s exhaust through carbon capture methods for geologic storage or use in industrial and other applications, according to the Department of Energy. Fossil fuel industry giants like Calpine and Chevron are looking to take advantage of new federal tax credits and grant funding for CCUS to manage potentially high costs in meeting power plant performance requirements, amid growing investor pressure for climate reporting, including new rules, expected from EPA soon, on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants.

Power companies have “ambitious plans” to add CCUS to power plants, estimated to cause 25% of U.S. CO2 emissions. As a result, the power sector “needs CCUS in its toolkit,” said DOE Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Assistant Secretary Brad Crabtree. Successful pilots and demonstrations “will add to investor confidence and lead to more deployment” to provide dispatchable clean energy, including emerging CO2-to-electricity approaches for power system reliability after 2030,| he added.

But environmentalists and others insist potentially cost-prohibitive CCUS infrastructure, including CO2 storage hub initiatives, must still prove itself effective under rigorous and transparent federal oversight.

“The vast majority of long-term U.S. power sector needs can be met without fossil generation, and better options are being deployed and in development,” Sierra Club Senior Advisor, Strategic Research and Development, Jeremy Fisher, said, pointing to carbon-free electricity investments gaining momentum in the market. CCUS “may be needed, but without better guardrails, power sector abuses of federal funding could lead to increased emissions and stranded fossil assets,” he added.

New DOE CCUS project grants, an increased $85 per metric ton, or tonne, federal 45Q tax credit, and the forthcoming EPA power plant carbon rules and the federal coal plan will do for CCUS what similar policies did for renewables, advocates and opponents agreed. But controversial past CCUS performance and tax credit abuses must be avoided with transparent reporting requirements for CO2 capture, opponents added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News