We Energies refiles rate hike request driven by rising nuclear power costs

Denmark Renewable Energy Outlook assesses Eurostat ranking, district heating and trash incineration, EV adoption, wind turbine testing expansions, and electrification to cut CO2, aligning policies with EU 2050 climate goals and green electricity usage.

Key Points

A brief analysis of Denmark's green power use, electrification, EVs, and policies needed to meet EU 2050 CO2 goals.

✅ Eurostat rank low due to trash incineration in district heating.

✅ EV adoption stalled after tax reinstatement, slowing electrification.

✅ Wind test centers expanded; electrification could cut 95% CO2.

Denmark’s low ranking in the latest figures from Eurostat regarding climate-friendly electricity, which places the country in 32nd place out of 40 countries, is partly a result of the country’s reliance on the incineration of trash to warm our homes via long-established district heating systems.

Additionally, there are not enough electric vehicles – a recent increase in sales was halted in 2016 when the government started to phase back registration taxes scrapped in 2008, and Europe’s EV slump underscores how fragile momentum can be.

Not enough green electricity being used

Denmark is good at producing green electricity, reports Politiken, but it does not use enough, and amid electricity price volatility in Europe this is bad news if it wants to fulfil the EU’s 2050 goal to eliminate CO2 emissions.

A recent report by Eurelectric and McKinsey demonstrates that if heating, transport and industry were electrified, reflecting a broader European push for electrification across the energy system, 95 percent of the country’s CO2 emissions could be eliminated by that date.

Wind turbine testing centre expansion approved

Parliament has approved the expansion of two wind turbine centres in northwest Jutland, supporting integration as e-mobility drives electricity demand in the coming years. The centres in Østerild and Høvsøre will have the capacity to test nine and seven turbines, measuring 330 and 200 metres in size (up from 250 and 165) respectively. The Østerild expansion should be completed in 2019, while Høvsøre ​​will have to wait a little longer.

Third on the Environmental Performance Index

Denmark finished third on the latest Environmental Performance Index, finishing only behind Switzerland and France. Its best category ranking was third for Environmental Health, and comparative energy efficiency benchmarking can help contextualize progress. Elsewhere, it ranked 11th for Ecosystem Vitality, 18th for Biodiversity and Habitat, 94th for Forests, 87th for Fisheries, 25th for Climate and Energy and 37th for Air Pollution, 14th for Water Resources and 7th for Agriculture.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

EPA Power Plant Emissions Rule proposes strict greenhouse gas limits for coal and gas units, leveraging carbon capture (CCS) under the Clean Air Act to cut CO2 and accelerate decarbonization of the U.S. grid.

Key Points

A proposed EPA rule setting CO2 limits for coal and gas plants, using CCS to cut power-sector greenhouse gases.

✅ Applies to existing and new coal and large gas units

✅ Targets near-zero CO2 by 2038 via CCS or retirement

✅ Cites grid, health, and climate benefits; faces legal challenges

The Biden administration has proposed new limits on greenhouse gas emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants, its most ambitious effort yet to roll back planet-warming pollution from the nation’s second-largest contributor to climate change.

A rule announced by the Environmental Protection Agency could force power plants to capture smokestack emissions using a technology that has long been promised but is not used widely in the United States, and arrives amid changes stemming from the NEPA rewrite that affect project reviews.

“This administration is committed to meeting the urgency of the climate crisis and taking the necessary actions required,″ said EPA Administrator Michael Regan.

The plan would not only “improve air quality nationwide, but it will bring substantial health benefits to communities all across the country, especially our front-line communities ... that have unjustly borne the burden of pollution for decades,” Regan said in a speech at the University of Maryland.

President Joe Biden, whose climate agenda includes a clean electricity standard as a key pillar, called the plan “a major step forward in the climate crisis and protecting public health.”

If finalized, the proposed regulation would mark the first time the federal government has restricted carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, following a Trump-era replacement of Obama’s power plant overhaul, which generate about 25% of U.S. greenhouse gas pollution, second only to the transportation sector. The rule also would apply to future electric plants and would avoid up to 617 million metric tons of carbon dioxide through 2042, equivalent to annual emissions of 137 million passenger vehicles, the EPA said.

Almost all coal plants — along with large, frequently used gas-fired plants — would have to cut or capture nearly all their carbon dioxide emissions by 2038, the EPA said, a timeline that echoed concerns raised during proposed electricity pricing changes in the prior administration. Plants that cannot meet the new standards would be forced to retire.

The plan is likely to be challenged by industry groups and Republican-leaning states, much like litigation over the Affordable Clean Energy rule unfolded in recent years. They have accused the Democratic administration of overreach on environmental regulations and warn of a pending reliability crisis for the electric grid. The power plant rule is one of at least a half-dozen EPA rules limiting power plant emissions and wastewater treatment rules.

“It’s truly an onslaught” of government regulation “designed to shut down the coal fleet prematurely,″ said Rich Nolan, president and CEO of the National Mining Association.

Regan denied that the power plant rule was aimed at shutting down the coal sector, but acknowledged — even after the end to the 'war on coal' rhetoric — “We will see some coal retirements.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EECBG Program Funding empowers states, Tribes, and local governments with DOE grants to deploy clean energy, energy efficiency, EV infrastructure, and community solar, cutting emissions, lowering utility bills, and advancing net-zero decarbonization.

Key Points

EECBG Program Funding is a $550M DOE grant for states, Tribes, and governments to deploy clean energy and efficiency.

✅ Supports EV infrastructure and community solar deployment

✅ Cuts emissions and lowers utility costs via efficiency

✅ Prioritizes Justice40 benefits for underserved communities

The Biden-Harris Administration, through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), today released a Notice of Intent announcing $550 million to support community-based clean energy in state, Tribal, and local governments — serving more than 250 million Americans. This investment in American communities, through the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program, will support communities across the country to develop local programming and deploy clean energy technologies to cut emissions, advance a 90% carbon-free electricity goal nationwide, and reduce consumers’ energy costs, and help meet President Biden’s goal of a net-zero economy by 2050. 

“This funding is a streamlined and flexible tool for local governments to build their electricity future with clean energy,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. “State, local, and Tribal communities nationwide will be able to leverage this funding to drive greater energy efficiency and conservation practices to lower utility bills and create healthier environments for American families.”   

The EECBG Program will fund 50 states, five U.S. territories, the District of Columbia, 774 Tribes, and 1,878 local governments in a variety of capacity-building, planning, and infrastructure efforts to reduce carbon emissions and energy use and improve energy efficiency in the transportation, building, and other related sectors. For example, communities with this funding can build out electric vehicle infrastructure and deploy community solar to serve areas that otherwise do not have access to electric vehicles or clean energy, particularly through a rural energy security program where appropriate.  

The $550 million made available through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) represents the second time that the EECBG Program has been funded, the first of which was through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. With this most recent funding, communities can build on prior investments and leverage additional clean energy funding from DOE, other federal agencies, and the private sector to achieve sustained impacts, supported by a Clean Electricity Standard where applicable, that can put their communities on a pathway to decarbonization. 

Through the EECBG Program and the Office of State and Community Energy Programs (SCEP), DOE will support the many diverse state, local, and tribal communities across the U.S., including efforts to revitalize coal communities through clean energy, as they implement this funding and other clean energy projects. To ensure no communities are left behind, the program aligns with President’s Justice40 initiative and efforts toward equity in electricity regulation to help ensure that 40% of the overall benefits of clean energy investments go to underserved and overburdened communities. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Biofuels vs EV Subsidies examines tradeoffs in decarbonization, greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy deployment, charging infrastructure, energy security, lifecycle emissions, and transportation sector policy to meet climate goals and accelerate sustainable mobility.

Key Points

Policy tradeoffs weighing biofuels and EVs to cut GHGs, boost energy security, and advance clean transportation.

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

California is at the forefront of the transition to a greener economy, driven by its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. As part of its strategy, the state is grappling with the question of whether it should subsidize out-of-state biofuels or in-state electric vehicles (EVs) to meet these goals. Both options come with their own sets of benefits and challenges, and the decision carries significant implications for the state’s environmental, economic, and energy landscapes.

The Case for Biofuels

Biofuels have long been promoted as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. They are made from organic materials such as agricultural crops, algae, and waste, which means they can potentially reduce carbon emissions in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. In the context of California, biofuels—particularly ethanol and biodiesel—are viewed as a way to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is one of the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsidizing out-of-state biofuels can help California reduce its reliance on imported oil while promoting the development of biofuel industries in other states. This approach may have immediate benefits, as biofuels are widely available and can be blended with conventional fuels to lower carbon emissions right away. It also allows the state to diversify its energy sources, improving energy security by reducing dependency on oil imports.

Moreover, biofuels can be produced in many regions across the United States, including rural areas. By subsidizing out-of-state biofuels, California could foster economic development in these regions, creating jobs and stimulating agricultural innovation. This approach could also support farmers who grow the feedstock for biofuel production, boosting the agricultural economy in the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks. The environmental benefits of biofuels are often debated. Critics argue that the production of biofuels—particularly those made from food crops like corn—can contribute to deforestation, water pollution, and increased food prices. Additionally, biofuels are not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, as their production and combustion still release greenhouse gases. When considering whether to subsidize biofuels, California must also account for the full lifecycle emissions associated with their production and use.

The Case for Electric Vehicles

In contrast to biofuels, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a more direct pathway to reducing emissions from transportation. EVs are powered by electricity, and when coupled with renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, they can provide a nearly zero-emission solution for personal and commercial transportation. California has already invested heavily in EV infrastructure, including expanding its network of charging stations and exploring how EVs can support grid stability through vehicle-to-grid approaches, and offering incentives for consumers to purchase EVs.

Subsidizing in-state EVs could stimulate job creation and innovation within California's thriving clean-tech industry, with other states such as New Mexico projecting substantial economic gains from transportation electrification, and the state has already become a hub for electric vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla, Rivian, and several battery manufacturers. Supporting the EV industry could further strengthen California’s position as a global leader in green technology, attracting investment and fostering growth in related sectors such as battery manufacturing, renewable energy, and smart grid technology.

Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are substantial. As the electric grid becomes cleaner with an increasing share of renewable energy, EVs will become even greener, with lower lifecycle emissions than biofuels. By prioritizing EVs, California could further reduce its carbon footprint while also achieving its long-term climate goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

However, there are challenges. EV adoption in California remains a significant undertaking, requiring major investments in infrastructure as they challenge state power grids in the near term, technology, and consumer incentives. The cost of EVs, although decreasing, still remains a barrier for many consumers. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is essential for EV batteries. While renewable energy is expanding, California’s grid is still reliant on fossil fuels to some degree, and in other jurisdictions such as Canada's 2019 electricity mix fossil generation remains significant, meaning that the full emissions benefit of EVs is not realized until the grid is entirely powered by clean energy.

A Balancing Act

The debate between subsidizing out-of-state biofuels and in-state electric vehicles is ultimately a question of how best to allocate California’s resources to meet its climate and economic goals. Biofuels may offer a quicker fix for reducing emissions from existing vehicles, but their long-term benefits are more limited compared to the transformative potential of electric vehicles, even as some analysts warn of policy pitfalls that could complicate the transition.

However, biofuels still have a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy-duty transportation, where electrification may not be as feasible in the near future. Thus, a mixed strategy that includes both subsidies for EVs and biofuels may be the most effective approach.

Ultimately, California’s decision will likely depend on a combination of factors, including technological advancements, 2021 electricity lessons, and the pace of renewable energy deployment, and the state’s ability to balance short-term needs with long-term environmental goals. The road ahead is not easy, but California's leadership in clean energy will be crucial in shaping the nation’s response to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Gulf Power Hurricane Michael Response details rapid power restoration, grid rebuilding, and linemen support across the Florida Panhandle, Panama City, and coastal areas after catastrophic winds, rain, and storm surge damaged transmission lines and substations.

Key Points

Gulf Power's effort to restore electricity after Hurricane Michael, including grid rebuilding and storm recovery.

✅ 3,000+ crews deployed for restoration and rebuilding

✅ Transmission, distribution, and substations severely damaged

✅ Panhandle customers warned of multi-week outages

Less than 24 hours ago, Hurricane Micheal devastated the residents in the Florida Panhandle with its heavy winds, rainfall and storm surge, as reflected in impact numbers across the region.

Gulf Power crews worked quickly through the night to restore power to their customers.

Linemen crews were dispatched from numerous of cities all over the U. S., reflecting FPL's massive Irma response to help those impacted by Hurricane Michael.

According to Jeff Rogers, Gulf Power spokesperson; “This was an unprecedented storm, and our customers will see an unprecedented response from Gulf Power. The destruction we’ve seen so far to this community and our electrical system is devastating — we’re seeing damage across our system, including distribution lines, transmission lines and substations.”

Gulf Power told Channel 3 said they dealt with issues like trees and heavy debris blocking roads from strong winds, and communications down can slow down the rebuilding and restoration process, but Gulf Power said they are prepared for this type of storm devastation.

According to Gulf Power, Hurricane Micheal caused so much damage to Panama City's electrical grid that crews not only had repair the lines, they had to rebuild the electrical system, a scenario similar to a complete rebuild seen after Hurricane Laura in Louisiana.

Gulf Power officials say, "Less than 24 hours after the storm, more than 3,000 storm personnel from around the country arrived in the Panama City area Thursday to begin the restoration and rebuilding process. So far, more than 4,000 customers have been restored on Panama City Beach. Power has been restored to all customers in Escambia, Santa Rosa and Okaloosa counties, and it’s expected that customers in Walton County will be restored tonight. But customers in the hardest hit areas should prepare to be without power for weeks, not days in some areas. Initial evaluations by Gulf Power indicate widespread, heavy damage to the electrical system in the Panama City area."

According to Gulf Power, crews have restored power to more than 32,000 Gulf Power customers in the wake of Hurricane Michael, but the work is just beginning for power restoration in the Panama City area.

Rogers said, “We’re heartbroken for our customers and our teammates who live in and near the Panama City area,” said Rogers. “This is the type of storm that changes lives — so aside from restoring power to our customers quickly and safely, our focus in the coming days and weeks will also be to help restore hope to these communities and help give them a sense of normalcy as soon as possible.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Nova Scotia Power Rate Increase Settlement faces UARB scrutiny as regulators weigh electricity rates, fuel costs, storm rider provisions, Bill 212 limits, and Muskrat Falls impacts on ratepayers and affordability for residential and industrial customers.

Key Points

A deal proposing 13.8% electricity hikes for 2023-2024, before the UARB, covering fuel costs, a storm rider, and Bill 212.

✅ UARB review may set different rates than the settlement

✅ Fuel cost prepayment and hedging incentives questioned

✅ Storm rider shifts climate risk onto ratepayers

Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston is calling on provincial regulators to reject a settlement agreement between Nova Scotia Power and customer groups that would see electricity rates rise by nearly 14% electricity rate hike over the next two years.

"It is our shared responsibility to protect ratepayers and I can't state strongly enough how concerned I am that the agreement before you does not do that," Houston wrote in a letter to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board late Monday.

Houston urged the three-member panel to "set the agreement aside and reach its own conclusion on the aforementioned application."

"I do not believe, based on what I know, that the proposed agreement is in the best interest of ratepayers," he said.

The letter does not spell out what his Progressive Conservative government would do if the board accepts the settlement reached last week between Nova Scotia Power and lawyers representing residential, small business and large industrial customer classes.

Other groups also endorsed the deal, although Nova Scotia Power's biggest customer — Port Hawkesbury Paper — did not sign on.

'We're protecting the ratepayers'
Natural Resources Minister Tory Rushton said the province was not part of the negotiations leading up to the settlement.

"As a government or department we had no intel on those conversations that were taking place," he said Tuesday. "So, we saw the information the same as the public did late last week, and right now we're protecting the ratepayers of Nova Scotia, even though the province cannot order Nova Scotia Power to lower rates under current law. We want to make sure that that voice is still heard at the UARB level."

Rushton said he didn't want to presuppose what the UARB will say.

"But I think the premier's been very loud and clear and I believe I have been, too. The ratepayers are at the top of our mind. We have different tools at our [disposal] and we'll certainly do what we can and need to [do] to protect those ratepayers."

The settlement agreement
If approved by regulators, rates would rise by 6.9 per cent in 2023 and 6.9 per cent in 2024 — almost the same amount on the table when hearings before the review board ended in September.

The Houston government later intervened with legislation, known as Bill 212, that capped rates to cover non-fuel costs by 1.8 per cent. It did not cap rates to cover fuel costs or energy efficiency programs.

In a statement announcing the agreement, Nova Scotia Power president Peter Gregg claimed the settlement adhered "to the direction provided by the provincial government through Bill 212."

Consumer advocate Bill Mahody, representing residential customers, told CBC News the proposed 13.8 per cent increase was "a reasonable rate increase given the revenue requirement that was testified to at the hearing."

Settlement 'remarkably' similar to NSP application
The premier disagrees, noting that the settlement and rate application that triggered the rate cap are "remarkably consistent."

He objects to the increased amount of fuel costs rolled into rates next year before the annual true up of actual fuel costs, which are automatically passed on to ratepayers.

"If Nova Scotia Power is effectively paid in advance, what motive do they have to hedge and mitigate the adjustment eventually required," Houston asked in his letter.

He also objected to the inclusion of a storm rider in rates to cover extreme weather, which he said pushed the risk of climate change on to ratepayers.

Premier second-guesses Muskrat Falls approval
Houston also second-guessed the board for approving Nova Scotia Power's participation in the Muskrat Falls hydro project in Labrador.

"The fact that Nova Scotians have paid over $500 million for this project with minimal benefit, and no one has been held accountable, is wrong," he said. "It was this board of the day that approved the contracts and entered the final project into rates."

Ratepayers are committed to paying $1.7 billion for the Maritime Link to bring the green source of electricity into the province, while rate mitigation talks in Newfoundland lack public details for their customers.

Although the Maritime Link was built on time and on budget by an affiliated company, only a fraction of Muskrat Falls hydro has been delivered because of ongoing problems in Newfoundland, including an 18% electricity rate hike deemed unacceptable by the province's consumer advocate.

"I find it remarkable that those contracts did not include different risk sharing mechanisms; they should have had provisions for issues in oversight of project management. Nevertheless, it was approved, and is causing significant harm to ratepayers in the form of increased rates."

Houston notes that because of non-delivery from Muskrat Falls, Nova Scotia Power has been forced to buy much more expensive coal to burn to generate electricity.

Opposition reaction
Opposition parties in Nova Scotia reacted to Houston's letter.

NDP Leader Claudia Chender dismissed it as bluster.

"It exposes his Bill 212 as not really helping Nova Scotians in the way that he said it would," she said. "Nothing in the settlement agreement contravenes that bill. But it seems that he's upset that he's been found out. And so here we are with another intervention in an independent regulatory body."

Liberal Leader Zach Churchill said the government should intervene to help ratepayers directly.

"We just think that it makes more sense to do that directly by supporting ratepayers through heating assistance, lump-sum electricity credits, rebate programs and expanding the eligibility for that or to provide funding directly to ratepayers instead of intervening in the energy market in this way," he said.

The premier's office said that no one was available when asked about an interview on Tuesday.

"The letter speaks for itself," the office responded.

Nova Scotia Power issued a statement Tuesday. It did not directly address Houston's claims.

"The settlement agreement is now with the NS Utility and Review Board," the utility said.

"The UARB process is designed to ensure customers are represented with strong advocates and independent oversight. The UARB will determine whether the settlement results in just and reasonable rates and is in the public interest."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News