Regulators approve Wisconsin utility's wind farm

Wind Turbine Cancer Claim debunked: Iowa Republican senators back wind energy as fact-checks and DOE research find no link between turbine noise and cancer, limited effects on property values, and manageable wildlife impacts.

Key Points

Claims that turbine noise causes cancer, dismissed by studies and officials as unsupported by evidence.

✅ Grassley and Ernst call the claim idiotic and ridiculous

✅ DOE studies find no cancer link; property impacts limited

✅ Wildlife impacts mitigated; climate change poses larger risks

President Donald Trump may not be a fan of wind turbines, as shown by his pledge to scrap offshore wind projects earlier, suggesting that the noise they produce may cause cancer, but Iowa's Republican senators are big fans of wind energy.

Sen. Chuck Grassley called Trump's cancer claim "idiotic." On Thursday, Sen. Joni Ernst called the statement "ridiculous."

"I would say it's ridiculous. It's ridiculous," Ernst said, according to WHO-TV.

She likened the claim that wind turbine noise causes cancer to the idea that church bells do the same.

"I have church bells that ring all the time across from my office here in D.C. and I know that noise doesn't give me cancer, otherwise I'd have 'church bell cancer,'" Ernst said, adding that she is "thrilled" to have wind energy generation in Iowa, which aligns with a quarter-million wind jobs forecast nationwide. "I don't know what the president is drawing from."

Trump has a history of degrading wind energy and wind turbines that dates back long before his Tuesday claim that turbines harm property values and cause cancer, and often overlooks Texas grid constraints that can force turbines offline at times.

Not only are wind farms disgusting looking, but even worse they are bad for people's health.

"Not only are wind farms disgusting looking, but even worse, they are bad for people's health," Trump tweeted back in 2012.

Repeated fact-checks have found no scientific evidence to support the claim that wind turbines and the noise they make can cause cancer. The White House has reportedly provided no evidence to support Trump's cancer claim when asked this week

"It just seems like every time you turn around there's another thing the president is saying -- wind power causes cancer, I associate myself with the remarks of Chairman Grassley -- it's an 'idiotic' statement," Pelosi said in her weekly news conference on Thursday.

The president made his latest claim about wind turbines in a speech on Tuesday at a Republican spring dinner, as the industry continued recovering from the COVID-19 crisis that hit solar and wind energy.

"If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75 percent in value -- and they say the noise causes cancer," Trump said Tuesday, swinging his arm in a circle and making a cranking sound to imitate the noise of windmill blades. "And of course it's like a graveyard for birds. If you love birds, you never want to walk under a windmill. It’s a sad, sad sight."

Wind turbines are not, in fact, proven to have widespread negative impacts on property values, according to the Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Information in the largest study done so far in the U.S., even as some warn that a solar ITC extension could be devastating for the wind market, and there is no peer-reviewed data to back up the claim that the noise causes cancer.

I am considered a world-class expert in tourism. When you say, 'Where is the expert and where is the evidence?' I say: I am the evidence.

It's true wildlife is affected by wind turbines -- particularly birds and bats, with research showing whooping cranes avoid turbines when selecting stopover sites. One study estimated between 140,000 and 328,000 birds are killed annually by collisions with turbines across the U.S. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated, however, that other human-related impacts also contribute to declines in population.

The wind industry works with biologists to find solutions to the impact of turbines on wildlife, and the Department of Energy awards grants each year to researchers addressing the issue, even as the sector faced pandemic investment risks in 2020. But, overall, scientists warn that climate change itself is a bigger threat to bird populations than wind turbines, according to the National Audobon Society.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "It just seems like every time you turn around, there's another thing. The president is saying wind power causes cancer. I associate myself with the remarks of Chairman Grassley; It's an 'idiotic' statement"

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

NDC Renewable Energy Ambition drives COP25 calls to align with the Paris Agreement, as IRENA urges 2030 targets toward 7.7 TW, accelerating decarbonization, energy transition, socio-economic benefits, and scalable renewables in Nationally Determined Contributions.

Key Points

Raised 2030 renewable targets in NDCs to meet Paris goals, reaching 7.7 TW efficiently and speeding decarbonization.

✅ Double current NDC renewables to align with 7.7 TW by 2030

✅ Cost effective pathway with jobs, growth, welfare gains

✅ Accelerates decarbonization and energy access per UN goals

We need an oracle to get us out of this debacle. The UN climate group has met for the 25th time. Will anything ever change?

Countries are being urged to significantly raise renewable energy ambition and adopt targets to transform the global energy system in the next round of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), according to a new IRENA report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) that will be released at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP25) in Madrid.

The report will show that renewable energy ambition within NDCs would have to more than double by 2030 to put the world in line with the Paris Agreement goals, cost-effectively reaching 7.7 terawatts (TW) of globally installed capacity by then. Today’s renewable energy pledges under the NDCs are falling short of this, targeting only 3.2 TW, even as over 30% of global electricity is already generated from renewables.

The reportNDCs in 2020: Advancing Renewables in the Power Sector and Beyondwill be released at IRENA’s official side event on enhancing NDCs and raising ambition on 11 December 2019.It will state that with over 2.3 TW installed renewable capacity today, following a record year for renewables in 2016, almost half of the additional renewable energy capacity foreseen by current NDCs has already been installed.

The analysis will also highlight that delivering on increased renewable energy ambition can be achieved in a cost-effective way and with considerable socio-economic benefits across the world.

“Increasing renewable energy targets is absolutely necessary,” said IRENA’s Director-General Francesco La Camera. “Much more is possible. There is a decisive opportunity for policy makers to step up climate action, including a fossil fuel lockdown, by raising ambition on renewables, which are the only immediate solution to meet rising energy demand whilst decarbonizing the economy and building resilience.

“IRENA’s analysis shows that a pathway to a decarbonised economy is technologically possible and socially and economically beneficial,” continued Mr. La Camera.

“Renewables are good for growth, good for job creation and deliver significant welfare benefits. With renewables, we can also expand energy access and help eradicate energy poverty by ensuring clean, affordable and sustainable electricity for all in line with the UN Sustainable Development Agenda 2030.

IRENA will promote knowledge exchange, strengthen partnerships and work with all stakeholders to catalyse action on the ground. We are engaging with countries and regions worldwide, from Ireland's green electricity push to other markets, to facilitate renewable energy projects and raise their ambitions”.

NDCs must become a driving force for an accelerated global energy transformation toward 100% renewable energy globally. The current pledges reflect neither the past decade’s rapid growth nor the ongoing market trends for renewables. Through a higher renewable energy ambition, NDCs could serve to advance multiple climate and development objectives.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Alberta Hydropower Potential highlights renewable energy, dams, reservoirs, grid flexibility, contrasting wind and solar growth with limited investment, regulatory hurdles, river basin resources, and decarbonization pathways across Athabasca, Peace, and Slave River systems.

Key Points

It is the technical capacity for new hydro in Alberta's river basins to support a more reliable, lower carbon grid.

✅ 42,000 GWh per year developable hydro identified in studies.

✅ Major potential in Athabasca, Peace, and Slave River basins.

✅ Barriers include high capital costs, market design, water rights.

When you think about renewable energy sources on the Prairies, your mind may go to the wind farms in southern Alberta, or even the Travers Solar Project, southeast of Calgary.

Most of the conversation around renewable energy in the province is dominated by advancements in solar and wind power, amid Alberta's renewable energy surge that continues to attract attention. 

But what about Canada's main source of electricity — hydro power?

More than half of Canada's electricity is generated from hydro sources, with 632.2 terawatt-hours produced as of 2019. That makes it the fourth largest installed capacity of hydropower in the world. 

But in Alberta, it's a different story. 

Currently, hydro power contributes between three and five per cent of Alberta's energy mix, while fossil fuels make up about 89 per cent.

According to Canada's Energy Future report from the Canada Energy Regulator, by 2050 it will make up two per cent of the province's electricity generation shares.

So why is it that a province so rich in mountains and rivers has so little hydro power?

Hydro's history in Alberta
Hydro power didn't always make up such a small sliver of Alberta's electricity generation. Hydro installations began in the early 20th century as the province's population exploded. 

Grant Berg looks after engineering for hydro for TransAlta, Alberta's largest producer of hydro power with 17 facilities across the province.

"Our first plant was Horseshoe, which started in 1911 that we formed as Calgary Power," he said. 

"It was really in response to the City of Calgary growing and having some power needs."

Berg said in 1913, TransAlta's second installation, the Kananaskis Plant, started as Calgary continued to grow.

A historical photo of a hydro-electric dam in Kananaskis Alta. taken in 1914.
Hydro power plant in Kananaskis as seen in 1914. (Glenbow Archives)
Some bigger installations were built in the 1920s, including Ghost reservoir, but by mid-century population growth increased.

"Quite a large build out really, I think in response to the growth in Alberta following the war. So through the 1950s really quite a large build out of hydro from there."

By the 1950s, around half of the province's installed capacity was hydro power.

"Definitely Calgary power was all hydro until the 1950s," said Berg. 

Hydro potential in the province 
Despite the current low numbers in hydroelectricity, Alberta does have potential. 

According to a 2010 study, there is approximately 42,000 gigawatt-hours per year of remaining developable hydroelectric energy potential at identified sites. 

An average home in Alberta uses around 7,200 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, meaning that the hydro potential could power 5.8 million homes each year. 

"This volume of energy could be sufficient to serve a significant amount of Alberta's load and therefore play a meaningful role in the decarbonization of the province's electric system," the Alberta Electric System Operator said in its 2022 Pathways to Net-Zero Emissions report.

Much of that potential lies in northern Alberta, in the Athabasca, Peace and Slave River basins.

The AESO report says that despite the large resource potential, Alberta's energy-only market framework has attracted limited investment in hydroelectric generation. 

Hydro power was once a big deal in Alberta, but investment in the industry has been in decline since the 1950s. Climate change reporter Christy Climenhaga explains why.
So why does Alberta leave out such a large resource potential on the path to net zero?

The government of Alberta responded to that question in a statement. 

"Hydro facilities, particularly large scale ones involving dams, are associated with high costs and logistical demands," said the Ministry of Affordability and Utilities. 

"Downstream water rights for other uses, such as irrigation, further complicate the development of hydro projects."

The ministry went on to say that wind and solar projects have increased far more rapidly because they can be developed at relatively lower cost and shorter timelines, and with fewer logistical demands.

"Sources from wind power and solar are increasingly more competitive," said Jean-Denis Charlebois, chief economist with the Canadian Energy Regulator. 

Hydro on the path to net zero
Hydro power is incredibly important to Canada's grid, and will remain so, despite growth in wind and solar power across the province.

Charlebois said that across Canada, the energy make-up will depend on the province. 

"Canadian provinces will generate electricity in very different ways from coast to coast. The major drivers are essentially geography," he said. 

Charlebois says that in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, hydropower generation will continue to make up the majority of the grid.

"In Alberta and Saskatchewan, we see a fair bit of potential for wind and solar expansion in the region, which is not necessarily the case on Canada's coastlines," he said.

And although hydro is renewable, it does bring its adverse effects to the environment — land use changes, changes in flow patterns, fish populations and ecosystems, which will have to be continually monitored. 

"You want to be able to manage downstream effects; make sure that you're doing all the proper things for the environment," said Ryan Braden, director of mining and hydro at TransAlta.

Braden said hydro power still has a part to play in Alberta, even with its smaller contributions to the future grid. 

"It's one of those things that, you know, the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine, this is here. The way we manage it, we can really support that supply and demand," he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Siwash Creek Hydroelectric Project faces downsizing under a BC Hydro power purchase agreement, with run-of-river generation, high grid interconnection costs, First Nations partnership, and surplus electricity from Site C reshaping clean energy procurement.

Key Points

A downsized run-of-river plant in BC, co-owned by Kanaka Bar and Green Valley, selling power via a BC Hydro PPA.

✅ Approved at 500 kW under a BC Hydro clean-energy program

✅ Grid interconnection initially quoted at $2.1M

✅ Joint venture: Kanaka Bar and Green Valley Power

A small run-of-river hydroelectric project recently selected by B.C. Hydro for a power purchase agreement may no longer be financially viable.

The Siwash Creek project was originally conceived as a two-megawatt power plant by the original proponent Chad Peterson, who holds a 50-per-cent stake through Green Valley Power, with the Kanaka Bar Indian Band holding the other half.

The partners were asked by B.C. Hydro to trim the capacity back to one megawatt, but by the time the Crown corporation announced its approval, it agreed to only half that — 500 kilowatts — under its Standing Order clean-energy program.

“Hydro wanted to charge us $2.1 million to connect to the grid, but then they said they could reduce it if we took a little trim on the project,” said Kanaka Bar Chief Patrick Michell.

The revenue stream for the band and Green Valley Power has been halved to about $250,000 a year. The original cost of running the $3.7-million plant, including financing, was projected to be $273,000 a year, according to the Kanaka Bar economic development plan.

“By our initial forecast, we will have to subsidize the loan for 20 years,” said Michell. “It doesn’t make any sense.”

The Kanaka Band has already invested $450,000 in feasibility, hydrology and engineering studies, with a similar investment from Green Valley.

B.C. Hydro announced it would pursue five purchase agreements last March with five First Nations projects — including Siwash Creek — including hydro, solar and wind energy projects, as two new generating stations were being commissioned at the time. A purchase agreement allows proponents to sell electricity to B.C. Hydro at a set price.

However, at least ten other “shovel-ready” clean energy projects may be doomed while B.C. Hydro completes a review of its own operations and its place in the energy sector, where legal outcomes like the Squamish power project ruling add uncertainty, including B.C.’s future power needs.

With the 1,100-megawatt Site C Dam planned for completion in 2024, and LNG demand cited to justify it, B.C. Hydro now projects it will have a surplus of electricity until the early 2030s.

Even if British Columbians put 300,000 electric vehicles on the road over the next 12 years, amid BC Hydro’s first call for power, they will require only 300 megawatts of new capacity, the company said.

A long-term surplus could effectively halt all small-scale clean energy development, according to Clean Energy B.C., even as Hydro One’s U.S. coal plant remains online in the region.

“(B.C. Hydro) dropped their offer down to 500 kilowatts right around the time they announced their review,” said Michell. “So we filled out the paperwork at 500 kilowatts and (B.C. Hydro) got to make its announcement of five projects.”

In the new few weeks, Kanaka and Green Valley will discuss whether they can move forward with a new financial model or shelve the project, he said.

B.C. Hydro declined to comment on the rationale for downsizing Siwash Creek’s power purchase agreement.

The Kanaka Bar Band successfully operates a 49.9-megawatt run-of-river plant on Kwoiek Creek with partners Innergex Renewable Energy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Advanced Nuclear Technology drives decarbonization through innovation, SMRs, and a stable grid, bolstering U.S. leadership, energy security, and clean power exports under supportive regulation and policy to meet climate goals cost-effectively.

Key Points

Advanced nuclear technology uses SMRs to deliver low-carbon, reliable power and strengthen energy security.

✅ Accelerates decarbonization with firm, low-carbon baseload power

✅ Enhances grid reliability via SMRs and advanced fuel cycles

✅ Supports U.S. leadership through exports, R&D, and modern regulation

The most cost-effective way--indeed the only reasonable way-- to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and foster our national economic and security interests is through innovation, especially next-gen nuclear power innovation. That's from Rep. Greg Walden, R-Oregon, ranking Republican member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, speaking to a Subcommittee on Energy hearing titled, "Building a 100 Percent Clean Economy: Advanced Nuclear Technology's Role in a Decarbonized Future."

Here are the balance of his remarks.

Encouraging the deployment of atomic energy technology, strengthening our nuclear industrial base, implementing policies that helps reassert U.S. nuclear leadership globally... all provide a promising path to meet both our environmental and energy security priorities. In fact, it's the only way to meet these priorities.

So today can help us focus on what is possible and what is necessary to build on recent policies we've enacted to ensure we have the right regulatory landscape, the right policies to strengthen our domestic civil industry, and the advanced nuclear reactors on the horizon.

U.S. global leadership here is sorely needed. Exporting clean power and clean power technologies will do more to drive down global Co2 emissions on the path to net-zero emissions worldwide than arbitrary caps that countries fail to meet.

In May last year, the International Energy Agency released an informative report on the role of nuclear power in clean energy systems; it did not find current trends encouraging.

The report noted that nuclear and hydropower "form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation," responsible for three-quarters of global low-carbon generation and the reduction of over 60 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions over the past 50 years.

Yet IEA found in advanced economies, nuclear power is in decline, with closing plants and little new investment, "just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity."

There are various reasons for this, some relating to cost overruns and delays, others to policies that fail to value the "low-carbon and energy security attributes" of nuclear. In any case, the report found this failure to encourage nuclear will undermine global efforts to develop cleaner electricity systems.

Germany demonstrates the problem. As it chose to shut down its nuclear industry, it has doubled down on expanding renewables like solar and wind. Ironically, to make this work, it also doubled down on coal. This nuclear phase out has cost Germany $12 billion a year, 70% of which is from increased mortality risk from stronger air pollutants (this according to the National Bureau of Economic Research). If other less technologically advanced nations even could match the rate of renewables growth reached by Germany, they would only hit about a fifth of what is necessary to reach climate goals--and with more expensive energy. So, would they then be forced to bring online even more coal-fired sources than Germany?

On the other hand, as outlined by the authors of the pro-nuclear book "A Bright Future," France and Sweden have both demonstrated in the 1970s and 1980s, how to do it. They showed that the build out of nuclear can be done at five times the rate of Germany's experience with renewables, with increased electricity production and relatively lower prices.

I think the answer is obvious about the importance of nuclear. The question will be "can the United States take the lead going forward?"

We can help to do this in Congress if we fully acknowledge what U.S. leadership on nuclear will mean--both for cleaner power and industrial systems beyond electricity, here and abroad--and for the ever-important national security attributes of a strong U.S. industry.

Witnesses have noted in recent hearings that recognizing how U.S. energy and climate policy effects energy and energy technology relationships world-wide is critical to addressing emissions where they are growing the fastest and for strengthening our national security relationships.

Resurrecting technological leadership in nuclear technology around the world will meet our broader national and energy security reasons--much as unleashing U.S. LNG from our shale revolution restored our ability to counter Russia in energy markets, while also driving cleaner technology. Our nuclear energy exports boost our national security priorities.

We on Energy and Commerce have been working, in a bipartisan manner over the past few Congresses to enhance U.S. nuclear policies. There is most certainly more to do. And I think today's hearing will help us explore what can be done, both administratively and legislatively, to pave the way for advanced nuclear energy.

Let me welcome the panel today. Which, I'm pleased to see, represents several important perspectives, including industry, regulatory, safety, and international expertise, to two innovative companies--Terrapower and my home state of Oregon's NuScale. All of these witnesses can speak to what we need to do to build, operate and lead with these new technologies.

We should work to get our nation's nuclear policy in order, learning from global frameworks like the green industrial revolution abroad. Today represents a good step in that effort.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Clean Power Plan Rollback signals EPA's shift to inside-the-fence efficiency at coal plants, emphasizing heat-rate improvements over sector-wide decarbonization, renewables, natural gas switching, demand-side efficiency, and carbon capture under Clean Air Act constraints.

Key Points

A policy shift by the EPA to replace broad emissions rules with plant-level efficiency standards, limiting CO2 cuts.

✅ Inside-the-fence heat-rate improvements at coal units

✅ Potential CO2 cuts limited to about 6% per plant

✅ Alternatives: fuel switching, renewables, carbon capture

President Barack Obama’s signature plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electrical generation took years to develop and touched every aspect of power production and use, from smokestacks to home insulation.

The Trump administration is moving to scrap that plan and has signaled that any alternative it might adopt would take a much less expansive approach, possibly just telling utilities to operate their plants more efficiently.

That’s a strategy environmentalists say is almost certain to fall short of what’s needed.

The Trump administration is making "a wholesale retreat from EPA’s legal, scientific and moral obligation to address the threats of climate change," said former Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy, the architect of Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

President Donald Trump promised to rip up the initiative, echoing an end to the 'war on coal' message from his campaign, which mandated that states change their overall power mix, displacing coal-fired electricity with that from wind, solar and natural gas. The EPA is about to make it official, arguing the prior administration violated the Clean Air Act by requiring those broad changes to the electricity sector, according to a draft obtained by Bloomberg.

Possible Replacements

Later, the agency will also ask the public to weigh in on possible replacements. The administration will ask whether the EPA can or should develop a replacement rule -- and, if so, what actions can be mandated at individual power plants, though some policymakers favor a clean electricity standard to drive broader decarbonization.

Follow the Trump Administration’s Every Move

Such changes -- such as adding automation or replacing worn turbine seals -- would yield at most a 6 percent gain in efficiency, along with a corresponding fall in greenhouse gas emissions, according to earlier modeling by the Environmental Protection Agency and other analysts. That compares to the 32 percent drop in emissions by 2030 under Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

"In these existing plants, there’s only so many places to look for savings," said John Larsen, a director of the Rhodium Group, a research firm. "There’s only so many opportunities within a big spinning machine like that."

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt outlined such an "inside-the-fence-line" approach in 2014, later embodied in the Affordable Clean Energy rule that industry groups backed, when he served as Oklahoma’s attorney general. Under his blueprint, states would set emissions standards after a detailed unit-by-unit analysis, looking at what reductions are possible given "the engineering limits of each facility."

The EPA has not decided whether it will promulgate a new rule at all, though it has also proposed new pollution limits for coal and gas plants in separate actions. In a forthcoming advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA will ask "what inside-the-fence-line options are legal, feasible and appropriate," according to a document obtained by Bloomberg.

Increased efficiency at a coal plant -- known as heat-rate improvement -- translates into fewer carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of electric power generated.

Under Obama, the EPA envisioned utilities would make some straightforward efficiency improvements at coal-fired power plants as the first step to comply with the Clean Power Plan. But that was expected to coincide with bigger, broader changes -- such as using more cleaner-burning natural gas, adding more renewable power projects and simply encouraging customers to do a better job turning down their thermostats and turning off their lights.

Obama’s EPA didn’t ask utilities to wring every ounce of efficiency they could out of coal-fired power plants because they saw the other options as cheaper. A plant-specific approach "would be grossly insufficient to address the public health and environmental impacts from CO2 emissions," Obama’s EPA said.

That approach might yield modest emissions reductions and, in a perverse twist, might event have the opposite effect. If utilities make coal plants more efficient -- thereby driving down operating costs -- they also make them more competitive with natural gas and renewables, "so they might run more and pollute more," said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director for the Clean Air Task Force.  

In a competitive market, any improvement in emissions produced for each unit of energy could be overwhelmed by an increase in electrical output, and debates over changes to electricity pricing under Trump and Perry added further uncertainty.

"A very minor heat rate improvement program would very likely result in increased emissions," Schneider said. "It might be worse than nothing."

Power companies want to get as much electricity as possible from every pound of coal, so they already have an incentive to keep efficiency high, said Jeff Holmstead, a former assistant EPA administrator now at Bracewell LLP. But an EPA regulation known as “new source review” has discouraged some from making those changes, for fear of triggering other pollution-control requirements, he said.

"If EPA’s replacement rule allows companies to improve efficiency without triggering new source review, it would make a real difference in terms of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions," Holmstead said.

Modest Impact

A plant-specific approach doesn’t have to mean modest impact.

"If you’re thinking about what can be done at the power plants by themselves, you don’t stop at efficiency tune-ups," said David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate and clean air program. "You look at things like switching to natural gas or installing carbon capture and storage."

Requirements that facilities use carbon capture technology or swap in natural gas for coal could actually come close to hitting the same goals as in Obama’s Clean Power Plan -- if not go even further, Schneider said. They just would cost more.

The benefit of the Clean Power Plan "is that it enabled states to create programs and enabled companies to find a reduction strategy that was the most efficient and made the most sense for their own content," said Kathryn Zyla, deputy director of the Georgetown Climate Center. "And that flexibility was really important for the states and companies."

Some utilities, including Houston-based Calpine Corp., PG&E Corp. and Dominion Resources Inc., backed the Obama-era approach. And they are still pushing the Trump administration to be creative now.

"The Clean Power Plan achieved a thoughtful, balanced approach that gave companies and states considerable flexibility on how best to pursue that goal," said Melissa Lavinson, vice president of federal affairs and policy for PG&E’s Pacific Gas and Electric utility. “We look forward to working with the administration to devise an alternative plan for decarbonizing the U.S. economy."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News