As Trump ditches Paris, California is one step closer to getting wind power from Wyoming

EPA Wastewater Rule Rollback signals a move to rewrite 2015 Clean Water Act guidelines for coal-fired power plants, easing wastewater rules as heavy metals, mercury, lead, arsenic, and selenium threaten rivers, lakes, public health.

Key Points

A planned EPA rewrite of 2015 wastewater limits for coal plants, weakening protections against toxic heavy metals.

✅ Targets 2015 Clean Water Act wastewater guidelines

✅ Affects coal-fired steam electric power plants

✅ Raises risks from mercury, lead, arsenic, selenium

The Environmental Protection Agency says it plans to scrap an Obama-era measure limiting water pollution from coal-fired power plants, mirroring moves to replace the Clean Power Plan elsewhere in power-sector policy.

A letter from EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt released Monday as part of a legal appeal and amid a broader rewrite of NEPA rules said he will seek to revise the 2015 guidelines mandating increased treatment for wastewater from steam electric power-generating plants.

Acting at the behest of energy groups and electric utilities who opposed the stricter standards, Pruitt first moved in April to delay implementation of the new guidelines. The wastewater flushed from the coal-fired plants into rivers and lakes typically contains traces of such highly toxic heavy metals as lead, arsenic, mercury and selenium.

“After carefully considering your petitions, I have decided that it is appropriate and in the public interest to conduct a rulemaking to potentially revise (the regulations),” Pruitt wrote in the letter addressed to the pro-industry Utility Water Act Group and the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Pruitt’s letter, dated Friday, was filed Monday with the Fifth Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which is hearing legal challenges of the wastewater rule. With Pruitt now moving to rewrite the standards, EPA has asked to court to freeze the legal fight.

While that process moves ahead, EPA’s existing guidelines from 1982 remian in effect. Those standards were set when far less was known about the detrimental impacts of even tiny levels of heavy metals on human health and aquatic life.

“Power plants are by far the largest offenders when it comes to dumping deadly toxics into our lakes and rivers,” said Thomas Cmar, a lawyer for the legal advocacy group Earthjustice. “It’s hard to believe that our government officials right now are so beholden to big business that they are willing to let power plants continue to dump lead, mercury, chromium and other dangerous chemicals into our water supply.”

EPA estimates that the 2015 rule, if implemented, would reduce power plant pollution, consistent with new pollution limits proposed for coal and gas plants, by about 1.4 billion pounds a year. Only about 12 per cent of the nation’s steam electric power plants would have to make new investments to meet the higher standards, according to the agency.

Utilities would need to spend about $480 million on new wastewater treatment systems, resulting in about $500 million in estimated public benefits, such as fewer incidents of cancer and childhood developmental defects.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Site C Project Delay raises BC Hydro costs as Christy Clark warns $600 million impact; NDP and Greens seek BCUC review of the hydroelectric dam on the Peace River, challenging evictions and construction contracts.

Key Points

A potential slowdown of B.C.'s Site C dam, risking $600M overruns, evictions, and schedule delays pending a BCUC review.

✅ Clark warns $600M cost if river diversion slips a year

✅ NDP-Green seek BCUC review; request to pause contracts, evictions

✅ Peace River hydro dam; schedule critical to budget, ratepayers

Premier Christy Clark is warning the NDP and Greens that delaying work on the Site C project in northeast British Columbia could cost taxpayers $600 million.

NDP Leader John Horgan wrote to BC Hydro last week asking it to suspend the evictions of two homeowners and urging it not to sign any new contracts on the $8.6-billion hydroelectric dam until a new government has gained the confidence of the legislature.

But Clark says in letters sent to Horgan and Green Leader Andrew Weaver on Tuesday that the evictions are necessary as part of a road and bridge construction project that are needed to divert a river in September 2019.

Any delay could postpone the diversion by a year and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, she says.

“With a project of this size and scale, keeping to a tight schedule is critical to delivering a completed project on time and on budget,” she says. “The requests contained in your letter are not without consequences to the construction schedule and ultimately have financial ramifications to ratepayers.”

The premier has asked Horgan and Weaver to reply by Saturday on whether they still want to put the evictions on hold.

She also asks whether they want the government to issue a “tools down” request to BC Hydro on other decisions that she says are essential to maintaining the budget and construction schedule.

An agreement between the NDP and Green party was signed last week that would allow the New Democrats to form a minority government, ousting Clark's Liberals.

The agreement includes a promise to refer the Site C project to the B.C. Utilities Commission to determine its economic viability.

Some analysts argue that better B.C.-Alberta power integration could improve climate outcomes and market flexibility.

But Clark says the project is likely to progress past the “point of no return” before a review can be completed.

Clark did not define what she meant by “point of no return,” nor did she explain how she reached the $600-million figure. Her press secretary Stephen Smart referred questions to BC Hydro, which did not immediately respond.

During prolonged drought conditions, BC Hydro has had to adapt power generation across the province, affecting planning assumptions.

In a written response to Clark, Weaver says before he can comment on her assertions he requires access to supporting evidence, including signed contracts, the project schedule and potential alternative project timelines.

“Please let me express my disappointment in how your government is choosing to proceed with this project,” he says.

“Your government is turning a significant capital project that potentially poses massive economic risks to British Columbians into a political debate rather than one informed by evidence and supported by independent analysis.”

The dam will be the third on the Peace River, flooding an 83-kilometre stretch of valley, and local First Nations, landowners and farmers have fiercely opposed the project.

Construction began two years ago.

A report written by University of British Columbia researchers in April argued it wasn't too late to press pause on the project and that the electricity produced by Site C won't be fully required for nearly a decade after it's complete.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Renewable Energy Market Reform aligns solar and wind with modern grid pricing, tackling intermittency via batteries and demand response, stabilizing wholesale power prices, and enabling capacity markets to finance flexible supply for deep decarbonization.

Key Points

A market overhaul that integrates variable renewables, funds flexibility, and stabilizes grids as solar and wind grow.

✅ Dynamic pricing rewards flexibility and demand response

✅ Capacity markets finance reliability during intermittency

✅ Smart grids, storage, HV lines balance variable supply

ALMOST 150 years after photovoltaic cells and wind turbines were invented, they still generate only 7% of the world’s electricity. Yet something remarkable is happening. From being peripheral to the energy system just over a decade ago, they are now growing faster than any other energy source and their falling costs are making them competitive with fossil fuels. BP, an oil firm, expects renewables to account for half of the growth in global energy supply over the next 20 years. It is no longer far-fetched to think that the world is entering an era of clean, unlimited and cheap, abundant electricity for all. About time, too. 

There is a $20trn hitch, though. To get from here to there requires huge amounts of investment over the next few decades, to replace old smog-belching power plants and to upgrade the pylons and wires that bring electricity to consumers. Normally investors like putting their money into electricity because it offers reliable returns. Yet green energy has a dirty secret. The more it is deployed, the more it lowers the price of power from any source. That makes it hard to manage the transition to a carbon-free future, during which many generating technologies, clean and dirty, need to remain profitable if the lights are to stay on. Unless the market is fixed, subsidies to the industry will only grow.

Policymakers are already seeing this inconvenient truth as a reason to put the brakes on renewable energy. In parts of Europe and China, investment in renewables is slowing as subsidies are cut back, even as Europe’s electricity demand continues to rise. However, the solution is not less wind and solar. It is to rethink how the world prices clean energy in order to make better use of it.

Shock to the system

At its heart, the problem is that government-supported renewable energy has been imposed on a market designed in a different era. For much of the 20th century, electricity was made and moved by vertically integrated, state-controlled monopolies. From the 1980s onwards, many of these were broken up, privatised and liberalised, so that market forces could determine where best to invest. Today only about 6% of electricity users get their power from monopolies. Yet everywhere the pressure to decarbonise power supply has brought the state creeping back into markets. This is disruptive for three reasons. The first is the subsidy system itself. The other two are inherent to the nature of wind and solar: their intermittency and their very low running costs. All three help explain why power prices are low and public subsidies are addictive.

First, the splurge of public subsidy, of about $800bn since 2008, has distorted the market. It came about for noble reasons—to counter climate change and prime the pump for new, costly technologies, including wind turbines and solar panels. But subsidies hit just as electricity consumption in the rich world was stagnating because of growing energy efficiency and the financial crisis. The result was a glut of power-generating capacity that has slashed the revenues utilities earn from wholesale power markets and hence deterred investment.

Second, green power is intermittent. The vagaries of wind and sun—especially in countries without favourable weather—mean that turbines and solar panels generate electricity only part of the time. To keep power flowing, the system relies on conventional power plants, such as coal, gas or nuclear, to kick in when renewables falter. But because they are idle for long periods, they find it harder to attract private investors. So, to keep the lights on, they require public funds.

Everyone is affected by a third factor: renewable energy has negligible or zero marginal running costs—because the wind and the sun are free. In a market that prefers energy produced at the lowest short-term cost, wind and solar take business from providers that are more expensive to run, such as coal plants, depressing wholesale electricity prices, and hence revenues for all.

Get smart

The higher the penetration of renewables, the worse these problems get—especially in saturated markets. In Europe, which was first to feel the effects, utilities have suffered a “lost decade” of falling returns, stranded assets and corporate disruption. Last year, Germany’s two biggest electricity providers, E.ON and RWE, both split in two. In renewable-rich parts of America, power providers struggle to find investors for new plants, reflecting U.S. grid challenges that slow a full transition. Places with an abundance of wind, such as China, are curtailing wind farms to keep coal plants in business.

The corollary is that the electricity system is being re-regulated as investment goes chiefly to areas that benefit from public support. Paradoxically, that means the more states support renewables, the more they pay for conventional power plants, too, using “capacity payments” to alleviate intermittency. In effect, politicians rather than markets are once again deciding how to avoid blackouts. They often make mistakes: Germany’s support for cheap, dirty lignite caused emissions to rise, notwithstanding huge subsidies for renewables. Without a new approach the renewables revolution will stall.

The good news is that new technology can help fix the problem.  Digitalisation, smart meters and batteries are enabling companies and households to smooth out their demand—by doing some energy-intensive work at night, for example. This helps to cope with intermittent supply. Small, modular power plants, which are easy to flex up or down, are becoming more popular, as are high-voltage grids that can move excess power around the network more efficiently, aligning with common goals for electricity networks worldwide.

The bigger task is to redesign power markets to reflect the new need for flexible supply and demand. They should adjust prices more frequently, to reflect the fluctuations of the weather. At times of extreme scarcity, a high fixed price could kick in to prevent blackouts. Markets should reward those willing to use less electricity to balance the grid, just as they reward those who generate more of it. Bills could be structured to be higher or lower depending how strongly a customer wanted guaranteed power all the time—a bit like an insurance policy. In short, policymakers should be clear they have a problem and that the cause is not renewable energy, but the out-of-date system of electricity pricing. Then they should fix it.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Israel Coal Reduction accelerates the energy transition, cutting coal use in electricity production by 30% as IEC shifts to natural gas, retires Hadera units, and targets a 2030 phase-out to lower emissions.

Key Points

Plan to cut coal power by 30%, retire IEC units, and end coal by 2030, shifting electricity generation to natural gas.

✅ 30% immediate cut in coal use for electricity by IEC

✅ Hadera units scheduled for retirement and gas replacement by 2022

✅ Complete phase-out of coal and gasoil in power by 2030

Israel's Energy and Water and Environmental Protection Ministers have ordered an immediate 30% reduction in coal use for electricity production by state utility Israel Electric Corporation as the country increases its dependence on domestic natural gas.

IEC, which operates four coal power plants with a total capacity of 4,850 MW and imports thermal coal from Australia, Colombia, Russia and South Africa, has been planning, as part of the decision to reduce coal use, to shut one of its coal plants during autumn 2018, when demand is lowest.

Israel has already decided to shut the four units of the oldest coal power plant at Hadera by 2022, echoing Britain's coal-free week milestones, and replace the capacity with gas plants.

"By 2030 Israel will completely stop the use of coal and gasoil in electricity production," minister Yuval Steinmetz said.

Coal consumption peaked in 2012 at 14 million mt and has declined steadily, aligning with global trends where renewables poised to eclipse coal in power generation, with the coming on line of Israel's huge Tamar offshore gas field in 2013.

In 2015 coal accounted for more than 50% of electricity production, even as German renewables outpaced coal in generation across that market. Coal's share would decline to less than 30% under the latest decision.

Israel's coal consumption in 2016 totaled 8.7 million mt, as India rationed coal supplies amid surging demand, and was due to decline to 8 million mt last year.

Three years ago, the ministers ordered a 15% reduction in coal use, while Germany's coal generation share remained significant, and the following year a further 5% cut was added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

National Electricity Market review calls for clear coal-fired closure schedules to safeguard energy security, backing a technology-agnostic clean energy and low emissions target with tradeable certificates to stabilise prices and support a smoother transition.

Key Points

A review proposing orderly coal closures and a technology-agnostic clean energy target to protect grid reliability.

✅ Mandates advance notice of coal plant closure schedules

✅ Supports clean energy and low emissions target with certificates

✅ Aims to stabilise prices and ensure system security

THE Latrobe Valley’s coal-fired power stations could be forced to give details of planned closures well in advance to help governments avoid major threats to electricity supply, amid an AEMO warning on reduced reserves across the grid.

The much-anticipated review of the national electricity market, to be released on Friday, will outline the need for clear schedules for the closure of coal-fired power stations to avoid rushed decisions on ­energy security.

It is believed the Turnbull government, which has ruled out taxpayer-funded power plants in the current energy debate, will move toward either a clean-energy or a low-emissions target that aims to bolster power security while reducing household bills and emissions.

The system, believed to be also favoured by industry, would likely provide a more stable transition to clean energy by engaging with the just transition concept seen in other markets, because coal-fired power would not be driven out of the market as quickly.

Sources said that would lead to greater investment in the energy sector, a surplus of production and, as seen in Alberta's shift to gas and price cap debate driving market changes, a cut in prices.

It is likely most coal-fired power stations, such as Yallourn and Loy Yang in the Latrobe Valley, would see out their “natural lives” under the government’s favoured system, rather than be forced out of business by an EIS.

The new target would be separate from the Renewable Energy Target which have come under fire because of ad hoc federal and state targets.

The Herald Sun has been told the policy would provide tradeable clean-energy certificates for low-emissions generation, such as wind, solar and gas and coal which used carbon capture and storage technology.

Energy retailers and large industrial users would then be ­required to source a mandated amount of certified clean power.

Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg has repeatedly said any solution must be “technology agnostic” including gas, renewable energy and coal, amid ongoing debates over whether to save or close nuclear plants such as the Three Mile Island debate in other markets.

Energy Networks Australia’s submission to the review, chaired by Chief Scientist Alan Finkel, acknowledged the challenges in identifying potential generation closures, particularly with uncertain and poorly integrated state and national carbon policy settings.

The group said given the likelihood of further closures of coal fired generation units a new mechanism was needed to better manage changes in the generation mix, well in advance of the closure of the plant.

It said the implications for system stability were “too significant” to rely on the past short-term closures, such as Hazelwood, particularly when the amount of power generated could drive energy security to “tipping point”.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Natural Gas Plant Rethink signals a shift toward clean energy, renewables, distributed solar, battery storage, and grid modernization as LADWP and regulators pause repowering plans amid an electricity oversupply and rising ratepayer costs.

Key Points

California pauses new gas plants to assess renewables, storage, and grid solutions for reliability.

✅ LADWP delays $2.2B gas repowers to study clean alternatives

✅ CEC weighs halting Oxnard plant amid grid oversupply

✅ Distributed solar, batteries, demand response boost reliability

California energy officials are, for the first time, rethinking plans to build expensive natural gas power plants in the face of an electricity glut and growing use of cleaner and cheaper energy alternatives.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power announced Tuesday that it has put a hold on a $2.2-billion plan to rebuild several old natural gas power plants while it studies clean energy alternatives to meet electricity demands. And the California Energy Commission may decide as early as Thursday to halt a natural gas project in Ventura County.

The scrutiny comes after an investigation found that the state is operating with an oversupply of electricity, driven largely by the construction of gas-fueled generating plants, leading to higher rates as regulators consider a rate overhaul to clean the grid. The state’s power plants are on track to be able to produce at least 21% more electricity than needed by 2020, according to the Times report.

Californians are footing a $40-billion annual bill while using less electricity, paying $6.8 billion more than they did in 2008 when power use in the state was at its all-time high. Electricity consumption has since fallen and remained largely flat.

Utilities in California have been on a years-long building binge, adding new natural gas plants even as the nation’s electricity system has undergone significant change, including consumer choice reforms that are reshaping the market.

Where utilities once delivered all electrical services from huge power plants along miles of transmission lines, the industry now must consider power delivered to the electric grid not only from its own sources, but also from solar systems and batteries at homes and businesses.

At the same time, utilities have been aggressively upgrading or rebuilding their aging natural gas plants — a move critics have said is unnecessary because consumers are using less power and clean energy technology is making those plants obsolete.

The DWP and energy commission moves involve as many as seven natural gas plant projects proposed for Southern California, despite warnings about a looming shortage if capacity is retired too fast, from Oxnard to Carlsbad, at a cost of more than $6 billion.

Reiko Kerr, the DWP’s senior assistant general manager of power systems, said given the changes in the energy world, the assessment is necessary to protect ratepayer dollars and the environment.

“The whole utility paradigm has shifted,” Kerr said in an interview. “We really are doing our ratepayers a disservice by not considering all viable options.

“We’re just looking at everything,” she said. “What can help us solve this reliability, renewable and greenhouse gas challenge that we all have?”

State and local governments have felt a heightened sense of urgency to deal with climate change after President Trump decided last week to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord.

California already has mandated that at least 50% of the state’s electricity come from clean energy sources by 2030. Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) wants to increase that to 100% by 2045.

Building or overhauling natural gas plants throughout Southern California, environmentalists argue, isn’t helping achieve those goals, even as some contend the state can't keep the lights on without gas during the transition.

The DWP’s move to delay plans for the fossil fuel plants, which seemed all but set to be built, came as a surprise to clean-energy advocates, who hailed the decision.

“This is a great first step toward smart energy investments that save customers money, ensure the lights stay on and protect our health and environment,” Graciela Geyer of the Sierra Club said.

The environmental group said that if the utility had moved ahead with the $2.2-billion investment in repowering natural gas plants, it “would have blown an irreparable hole in the city and the state’s hopes to achieve 100% generation” from clean energy sources.

Angela Johnson Meszaros, attorney at EarthJustice, said in a statement: "As our city struggles with the worst smog we’ve seen in years, we appreciate that LADWP is taking some much-needed time to reassess its plans to build fossil fuel power plants. We look forward to the day that LADWP announces that we are going to power our city with 100% clean energy.”

The gas-fired generating units slated for demolition and rebuilding are at the Scattergood, Haynes and Harbor electricity plants, which range from 34 to 67 years old.

As a group, the three plants have generated less than 20% of their combined capacity since 2001. The Harbor facility has operated on the low end at just 7%, while Haynes ran on the high end at 22%.

“The old model, the old legacy clunkers, won’t get us into the future we want,” DWP’s Kerr said.

DWP staff members told the utility’s’ commissioners Tuesday that their analysis of possible alternatives would be completed no later than early 2018.

Separately, the California Energy Commission this week is evaluating whether to halt a natural gas project in Ventura County after the state’s electric grid operator offered to conduct a study of clean energy alternatives to the roughly $250-million project on Mandalay Bay in Oxnard.

An energy commission committee has been deliberating since a hearing Monday during which Southern California Edison and the project’s developer, NRG Energy, argued that a study is simply a delay tactic that probably would kill a project needed to ensure reliable electric service and to avoid blackouts during peak demand.

The California Independent System Operator, which runs the state’s electric grid, told the energy commission that it would take three to four weeks to conduct its study on alternatives to the Oxnard natural gas project.

“Here we have an actual offer by the ISO to do such an analysis,” Ellison Folk, a lawyer representing the city of Oxnard, told the energy commission as she pushed for the study. “Its view that this is an analysis worth doing is something worth taking seriously.”

Energy commission members reviewing the study proposal are scheduled to meet again Thursday to consider the offer.

The board of governors for the California Independent System Operator made the unusual offer at its May 1 meeting to conduct a eleventh-hour study of clean-energy alternatives to building a new natural gas plant.

“If we’re going to be moving forward with a gas plant at this time, in this juncture, in the context of everything that’s going on, not evaluating other alternatives that are viable, noncombustion alternatives, is a missed opportunity,” Angelina Galetiva. a commission board member, said during the May 1 meeting.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News