Cold Weather Drives Record December Energy Costs in New England

Consistently cold weather drove record-high December energy market costs for ISO-NE and caused the region to rely heavily on stored oil and LNG injections.

“It was the coldest December, by our measurements, since December 2017,” averaging about 4.5 degrees below normal, Stephen George of ISO-NE told the NEPOOL Participants Committee on Jan. 8.

He said the region experienced its second-highest monthly energy market costs — and the highest recorded December energy costs — since ISO-NE Standard Market Design was implemented in 2003.

Based on data through Dec. 30, ISO-NE energy market value totaled about $1.8 billion in December, compared to about $1 billion in December 2024 and $718 million in November 2025.

December peak demand reached 19,477 MW, shy of last winter’s 19,631-MW peak and ISO-NE’s forecast 20,059-MW peak for the current winter, George said.

ISO-NE expects the region’s winter peak to grow by about 6 GW by 2034, driven by heating and transportation electrification. (See ISO-NE’s Final 10-year Demand Forecast Tapers Expectations.)

While the low temperatures caused the region to dip into stored fuels, there has been strong LNG and oil replenishment, George said.

Day-ahead ancillary service costs also spiked, with prices associated with day-ahead reserves and the Forecast Energy Requirement reaching their highest per-MW level since ISO-NE launched its new day-ahead market in March 2025. Consumer advocates in the region have said high costs associated with the RTO’s new day-ahead ancillary service products are a key area of concern in 2026. (See Costs of ISO-NE Day-ahead Ancillary Services Higher than Expected.)

Regarding the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) transmission line, George said testing may continue over the next week as the project proceeds through its final review steps, with the line scheduled to come online officially by Jan. 16. (See NECEC Transmission Line Ready to Begin Commercial Operations.)

“There’s been a bit of export testing,” he said. “Even though the line itself isn’t permitted as an export facility … exporting is an important part of that testing process.”

ISO-NE data indicate New England exported about 1,200 MW over the line for about eight hours Jan. 7.

While the line’s export capabilities “could be, at some future time, utilized,” George said, “once it’s in service and fully operational, we don’t anticipate exporting at any point.”

The NECEC project includes 20-year supply contracts with Massachusetts electric distribution companies for baseload power from Québec, and it appears unlikely the line will be operated bidirectionally for the duration of these contracts. However, Hydro-Québec has expressed a long-term interest in increased bidirectional power exchanges with New England.

George also noted Vineyard Wind’s operational offshore wind turbines have continued to run following the Trump administration’s suspension of leases for all under-construction offshore wind facilities in the U.S. Vineyard Wind has reached operation capabilities up to 572 MW, while the Revolution Wind project was scheduled to start sending power in January. (See Offshore Wind Developers Fight to get Back in the Water.)

“We’ve observed continued operation of the offshore wind facilities that are fully built out and have frequently observed several hundred megawatts of offshore wind flowing into the New England system, and we anticipate that that will continue,” George said.

Ontario OKs Underwater HVDC Line to Toronto

Ontario has approved IESO’s proposed $1.5 billion HVDC line under Lake Ontario, which planners say is needed to meet a potential doubling of Toronto’s electricity demand by 2050.

IESO recommended the 65-kilometer, 900-MW line in September, saying it would be more “future proof” than two cheaper options. (See Planners Pick $1.5B Underwater HVDC Line for Toronto’s ‘Third Supply’.)

IESO says Toronto’s electricity demand could increase 70 to 100% by 2044 due to new housing and commercial development, data centers and electrification of heating and transportation.

Electricity demand is expected to exceed the capacity of the two transmission lines currently supplying Toronto — from Manby Transmission Station (TS) west of the city and Leaside TS from the east — creating a “reliability need” by 2038. Closure of the 550-MW gas-fired Portlands Energy Centre (PEC) would create that need by 2034.

“Without a new transmission line, Toronto would have to turn down job-creating investments and reduce housing, which is simply unacceptable,” Minister of Energy and Mines Stephen Lecce said in a statement announcing the line’s approval.

The ministry said the new line between the Darlington transmission station and downtown Toronto also will support the province’s plans to refurbish the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station and build the first small modular reactors in the G7, the Darlington New Nuclear Project.

1st Competitive Transmission Procurement

The ministry said it will take seven to 10 years to design, construct and energize the line.

The government asked IESO to select the builder of the line through what would be the grid operator’s first competitive transmission procurement. In July, IESO opened enrollment in its Transmitter Selection Framework Registry, a prequalification mechanism for future procurements. (See IESO Removes Credit Requirement for Transmission Registry.)

The underwater line was one of three options planners considered for Toronto’s “Third Supply,” including an overland route from Cherrywood TS to Leaside TS in Toronto, estimated at $800 million, and a hybrid of overland and underground segments from Cherrywood TS to the Port Lands in Toronto, estimated at $900 million.

IESO said the underwater cable is “the most future proof” option, supporting forecasted demand beyond 2044.

The ministry said an underwater line also would be less vulnerable to flooding and ice storms that have resulted in outages and more than $100 million in costs and lost productivity. The line also would save $100 million to $300 million in bulk system reinforcements elsewhere in the Greater Toronto Area, the ministry said.

The HVDC line from Bowmanville to the Port Lands in downtown Toronto would require expansion of the Hearn station in the Port Lands.

Reaction

Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow lauded the approval of the new line. “Toronto is the fastest-growing city in North America, and that growth means we need more power to fuel our homes, transit and businesses,” she said.

Scott Andison, CEO of the Ontario Home Builders’ Association, said the new line is essential to addressing the region’s need for new housing. “Communities across Ontario are approaching real electricity capacity constraints, and without new transmission investments, the ability to deliver housing at scale will be compromised,” he said.

“By securing Toronto’s future as a global economic hub and creating good-paying jobs and opportunities for suppliers and service providers throughout Ontario, this initiative delivers benefits far beyond the city’s core,” said Stephanie Crilly, executive director of the Economic Developers Council of Ontario.

Some climate activists, however, have criticized IESO for not adequately considering non-wires alternatives to meet the city’s needs.

“It is premature to consider a third line which would further tie Toronto to a nuclear future,” wrote members of Toronto East Residents for Renewable Energy in September. “Before a decision is made by Toronto City Council, IESO or the province, there must be an evidence-based examination of ALL of Toronto’s options, including energy efficiency investments, commercial and institutional demand response, rooftop and parking lot solar generation, energy storage, and wind power.”

The group also called for consideration of an alternative third line that would bring power from an offshore wind farm.

The new line was included in IESO’s Integrated Regional Resource Plan (IRRP) for Toronto, which several environmental groups have criticized for ignoring Toronto City Council’s call for closing the Portlands Energy Centre by 2035 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2040.

“The IESO’s proposal takes the city in the opposite direction,” the groups, including Environmental Defence Canada and the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, said in November. “Instead of investing in local, renewable solutions such as energy efficiency, rooftop and community solar and offshore wind, the plan entrenches reliance on centralized gas and nuclear power, keeping Toronto tied to outdated, high-cost energy sources that delay real climate action and local job creation.”

In addition to the third line, the IRRP recommends battery energy storage systems and incremental electricity demand side management, including residential solar/storage systems. “With or without the supply contributions from PEC, meeting the significant need identified for eastern Toronto due to the significant forecasted growth requires a large-scale wires solution,” the ISO said.

Illinois Gov. Pritzker Signs Storage and VPP Bill Aimed at Affordability

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) has signed the Clean and Reliable Grid Affordability Act, which seeks to expand virtual power plants (VPPs) and energy storage in the state.

“In Illinois, we are pursuing every available option to produce affordable, efficient, clean and abundant energy,” Pritzker said in a statement. “We are leaving no stone unturned in the work to produce more electricity, lower prices for our people and secure our long-term energy future.”

The CRGA aims to cut power bills while moving forward on the state’s clean energy vision, which continues despite the federal government abandoning clean energy policies, he added. The Illinois Power Agency (IPA) said the bill is expected to save customers about $13.4 billion in savings over two decades.

The bill requires a procurement of 3 GW of grid-scale battery storage by 2030, which will help meet the need for capacity and lower power bills. Illinois is home to 11 nuclear reactors, and the bill lifts a ban on building a new nuclear facility.

Another provision requires utilities to create programs for virtual power plants (VPPs) to allow homes and small businesses to get paid to harness smart thermostats, solar panels, distributed batteries and electric vehicle charging to help balance the grid.

The bill also requires that standard energy efficiency programs are expanded, which will come with new spending requirements for low-income customers while removing the formula rates utilities get for administering such programs. Utilities will be required to offer time-of-use pricing to allow residential customers to pay less for power outside of peak times.

The IPA has handled some planning since its creation almost 20 years ago, but the CRGA requires a new integrated resource planning (IRP) process. The new IRP will be run by the Illinois Commerce Commission and its staff with input from the IPA and other agencies.

The first plan for the state’s main utilities required under CRGA is due from ICC staff by Nov. 15, 2026, with the commission to vote on it later. The IRP process is to be repeated every four years after ICC staff files the second with a due date of Sept. 30, 2029.

CRGA makes other changes such as directing the IPA to propose long-term clean energy contract procurements and protects contracted renewables from inflation by tying the budget for the renewable portfolio standard to inflation.

The bill authorizes the ICC to accelerate any pending renewable projects so they can take advantage of expiring federal tax credits.

Pritzker’s office noted that since the passage of the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act in 2021, Illinois has supported more than 6 GW of renewables, with another 6 GW under development.

The American Clean Power Association welcomed the Illinois legislation, saying it offers a framework to expand storage and reduce price volatility in the process.

“CGRA is advancing smart, timely solutions,” ACP Senior Vice President for State Affairs Sarah Cottrell Propst said in a statement. “With new investments in energy storage and virtual power plants, Illinois is positioning itself to keep energy costs low, improve reliability, and create clean-energy and manufacturing jobs — proven strategies that benefit consumers and strengthen the economy.”

The CRGA makes Illinois the 13th state to set up a procurement target for battery storage, the Clean Energy States Alliance said in a statement. An analysis found that the storage could save customers $3 billion over the next 20 years.

“States across the country are increasingly using energy storage to support the transition to clean, reliable and affordable energy,” CESA Senior Project Director Todd Olinsky-Paul said. “Energy storage can reduce reliance on costly and polluting fossil fuel ‘peaker’ plants, integrate clean renewable power onto the grid, increase energy resilience, lower air emissions and support ratepayer affordability.”

SPP Works to Augment Western Energy Transfers

SPP says it is pursuing inter-market optimization of energy transfers between its two Western Interconnection markets, mirroring a process it has developed in its existing RTO footprint.

Carrie Simpson, the grid operator’s vice president of markets, told Markets+ leadership and stakeholders Jan. 6 that staff are working on a solution that could provide an automatic, coordinated real-time market-clearing process that would initiate energy transfers between the two markets.

“There’s nothing like it that I’m aware of,” Simpson said during a conference call with the Interim Markets+ Independent Panel (IMIP). “It’s something that we’ve been researching and there’s different levels of it. It’s not going to be full blown intra-market optimization, but we see it as a helpful step forward that will help both Markets+ and the RTO footprint in the West.”

SPP published an analysis paper in 2025 on its study of a potential inter-market optimization (IMO) framework with MISO. The study found the more efficient use of the existing transmission system components and decreased production costs could reduce operating costs by about $20 million per year.

Simpson said SPP is targeting IMO’s deployment in the West in October 2028, one year after Markets+ is to begin operations.

The grid operator’s RTO expansion (RTOE) into the Western Interconnection is on track to go live April 1, 2026. When it does, Xcel Energy’s Public Service Company of Colorado, a Markets+ participant, will find itself surrounded by RTOE members.

Simpson said western utilities will have opportunities to import and export from the RTO, using dispatchable transactions and other methods to buy and sell. When Markets+ is live in 2027, both markets will be able to take import and exports “pursuant to their respective rules.”

SPP staff already have begun RTOE’s congestion-hedging process, Simpson said. When the market is fully operating, SPP’s current western imbalance market will cease operations and its members join the RTO or work toward other markets, “Like Markets+,” she said.

“It’s a really big deal that Markets+ and RTO Expansion are allowing economic dispatch of imports and exports at the borders,” said The Energy Authority’s Laura Trolese, who chairs the Markets+ Participant Executive Committee guiding the market’s development. “We are hoping that with CAISO and [its Extended Day-ahead Market], we can also get to a place where there can be economic, and not just fixed or self-scheduled, transactions. I think that’s an important aspect that will help allow those transfers to be optimized and more efficient.”

IMIP Approves Protocols, Tariff Revisions

During the call, the IMIP approved the first version of Markets+ protocols developed by stakeholders and SPP staff and approved by the MPEC in December. (See Markets+ Stakeholders Approve Baseline Protocols.)

The protocols’ first version will provide the operational framework needed to implement the market’s tariff and establish a baseline for implementation. Future refinements will be made through the normal stakeholder processes.

IMIP approved 32 tariff cleanup items recommended by MPEC. The revisions address minor grammatical updates, clarify defined terms and align language with the protocols to ensure consistency and readability. The revisions don’t modify the market design or operations.

The committee also approved four other revisions to the tariff, which were filed in 2024 and approved in early 2025:

    • Establishing how SPP recovers the administrative and implementation costs necessary to operate Markets+ after staff executed finalized Phase 2 funding agreements.
    • Updating boilerplate language outlining SPP’s responsibility to accurately calculate real-time balancing prices during system outages lasting more than 12 dispatch intervals.
    • Aligning the tariff with the protocols in calculating local prices and settlements using mitigated offers to ensure fair outcomes within the isolated area. Flexibility reserve products are not cleared in an island, preventing costs for services that cannot provide systemwide reliability value.
    • More definitively classifying when a market storage resource is self-charging in the day-ahead and real-time markets to settle any withdrawal that is considered self-charging as load.

Legal staff said the protocols and revisions will be filed with FERC within several months, once it’s determined there are no appeals to SPP’s Board of Directors. They will ask the commission for an effective date “well into the future.”

MSC Priorities for 2026

Arizona Commissioner Nick Myers, chair of the Markets+ State Commission, said western regulators want to ensure they’re as “educated and as informed as possible on all matters Markets+” as the market’s 2027 go-live date approaches.

It’s part of the MSC’s priority to have commissioners and staff continue to engage and collaborate with stakeholders as they build the market’s design and systems. Myers said the committee’s members will work with WEIB and SPP to host various educational sessions on tariff review, greenhouse gas accounting and other issues.

The MSC, composed of western state regulators, is increasing its staff capacity to maintain continuity as commissioners “come and go,” Myers said. He said this will compensate for regulators’ lack of experience with organized markets in the Western Interconnection.

“A lot of our commissions don’t have staff dedicated to do this kind of stuff and they don’t have any kind of foundation or backgrounds or anything like that,” Myers said. “We thought that it would be prudent to have some staff members that were able to come in and step in and maintain some continuity between those commissioners. Many of our staff have already kind of been following along, but this is a way to kind of get them more formally engaged.

The MSC will work with a larger budget in 2026 following IMIP’s approval of its $437,923 request. That’s a 12.4% increase from the 2025 budget of $389,680 that covered only the past nine months.

Attendance Capped for Seams Symposium

SPP staff said attendance has been capped and they are working off a wait list for its Feb. 26 Western Seams Symposium in Tempe, Ariz.

“So, packed house,” Simpson said. “It’s pretty exciting that there’s that much interest right now.”

She said the agenda is being developed but that the symposium will focus on education and the existing seams challenges in the West.

Markets+ stakeholders have developed a seams strategy and road map designed to identify focus areas for policies, and governing documents related to seams issues with neighboring areas. FERC in November 2025 published a policy paper urging SPP and CAISO to get ahead of seams issues before their western markets go live in 2026 and 2027. (See FERC Report Urges West to Address Looming Market Seams Issues.)

“SPP and Markets+ sees a vision of mitigating those seams, managing and making them better,” Simpson said.

MISO Fields 50 Expedited Tx Project Requests, Recommends Several

Just days into 2026, MISO already has approved or recommended dozens of expedited transmission projects for the 2026 cycle, including a substation project in Indiana that spawned several hundred million dollars in corrective action upgrades.

The price tag of the five added reliability projects to support the single expedited transmission project left stakeholders with questions over who would pay for them.

Most of MISO’s Jan. 6 Expedited Project Review Technical Study Task Force teleconference focused on expedited projects in Indiana. MISO recently completed analysis and mitigation plans for 22 transmission projects to either support a cumulative 3.7 GW in load additions or bolster reliability. The RTO recommends those projects advance to its 2026 MISO Transmission Expansion Plan (MTEP 26) after the Planning Advisory Committee has a chance to review them.

MISO already approved another 26 expedited transmission project requests for its MTEP 26 cycle as of Dec. 31, 2025. The projects represent about 5 GW of spot load additions.

MISO reviews transmission projects on an expedited basis when it cannot wait until the usual, end-of-year MTEP approval. With expected load growth, expedited requests have trended upward. MISO has received 50 submissions under its expedited process since June 2025.

This crop’s project with the highest total is a new Antioch 345-kV substation which, combined with the handful of reliability projects it requires, would cost around $378 million.

The $68.8 million project from AES Indiana involves construction of a new 345-kV breaker-and-a-half substation in the greater Indianapolis area to serve 1.2 GW of new data center load.

MISO’s Dave Seelye said the new substation project requires five corrective action plans to maintain reliability: a $2 million uprate of a nearby autotransformer, nearly $12 million to restore a neglected autotransformer to service, a $30 million switchyard expansion and connection to the local 138-kV transmission system, a $15 million equipment replacement on the nearby Guion-Whitestown 345-kV line to increase winter ratings, and finally, a $250 million investment in 55 miles of new, double-circuited 345-kV line.

MISO said the $250 million baseline reliability project supplants several rebuilds in the area that otherwise would be required.

Senior Expansion Planning Engineer Amanda Schiro said MISO conducted several rounds of study to capture all the mitigations the Antioch project would require.

Stakeholders in attendance questioned MISO’s classification of the corrective action plans for load growth projects as necessary reliability projects.

Sustainable FERC Project’s Natalie McIntire asked whether MISO would allocate the costs of the corrective action plans according to its baseline reliability project cost allocation.

Costs of baseline reliability projects in MISO are allocated to the transmission pricing zone where they’re located and spread out according to a load distribution factor. Costs are recovered by the transmission owners developing the projects.

Schiro said MISO merely analyzed “the reliability needs based on the changes to the system” and discovered NERC transmission planning violations based on the expedited projects. She said MISO categorized the projects as baseline reliability projects based on their purpose and did not consider cost allocation in its review of expedited projects. Schiro said cost sharing of the corrective action plans likely would align with their project classification.

WEC Energy Group’s Chris Plante said if stakeholders have concerns about the cost allocation of corrective action plans, they should raise them at the Planning Advisory Committee, not at expedited review task force meetings.

“This is probably not the right forum to address those,” Plante said.

MISO’s next Planning Advisory Committee meeting is Jan. 21.

Beyond the Antioch project, Hoosier Energy plans a $75.3 million, 345-kV substation expansion and line project to serve nearly 1 GW in data center load expansion in southwest Indiana. Hoosier Energy’s project also requires a $2 million corrective action plan, with construction of an additional 345-kV circuit planned between substations to reliably accommodate the load.

Finally, MISO vouched for ITC Midwest’s plans for an $11.3 million transmission project relying on Duane Arnold Energy Center, the Iowa nuclear plant NextEra Energy hopes to restart in late 2028 or early 2029. Duane Arnold’s reconnection is included in MISO’s expedited queue lane.

ITC plans to expand a 161-kV bus to support four new radial 161-kV lines that would be owned and operated by Central Iowa Power Cooperative to serve a 620-MW load addition.

The Iowa load addition project also requires a $1.2 million corrective action plan to replace transmission structures to increase line ratings.

BPA Presents Ideas for Updating Commercial Business Model

The Bonneville Power Administration outlined suggested modifications to its commercial business model (CBM) as the agency explores updating transmission processes.

The proposed changes were presented at a Jan. 6 workshop, which is part of a series of public meetings the agency is hosting under its Grid Access Transformation (GAT) project.

BPA paused certain planning processes and launched the GAT program in 2025 to consider changes following a surge of transmission service requests (TSRs). The federal power agency’s 2025 transmission cluster study includes more than 65 GW of requests, compared with 5.9 GW in 2021. The requests exceed the total regional load forecast for the Pacific Northwest in 2034, according to the agency. (See Utilities Back Some BPA Transmission Updates, Hesitate on Others.)

“The commercial business model will essentially become the path forward for commercial customers to receive firm power service when we don’t have the capacity currently available to meet that customer’s need,” BPA spokesperson Kevin Wingert told RTO Insider in an email. “The CBM will outline the process by which we identify necessary transmission upgrades in the system in collaboration with the commercial customer(s) to be able to offer firm service.”

The CBM needs to be updated because of “significant shifts” in the industry, Lauren Nichols-Kinas, public utility specialist in BPA’s Transmission Commercial Planning team, said at the workshop.

“It’s seeming pretty logical that we need to re-examine our commercial business model and assess what’s working well and what possibly needs to be shifted a little bit to make it fit better with the things we’ve learned and the changes that are happening within the Northwest footprint,” Nichols-Kinas said.

By updating the CBM, BPA hopes to achieve six objectives, according to presentation slides:

    • Ensure all TSRs remaining in the queue are “studiable,” meaning BPA has enough information to launch a study.
    • Achieve a “studiable” queue volume and process.
    • Balance causation and socialized cost.
    • Appropriately allocate risks associated with transmission expansion, including financial and modeling risks.
    • Support BPA’s mission regarding commercial transmission expansion.
    • Fairly allocate scarce system capability.

The size of the queue affects the agency’s ability to accept uncertainty or incomplete information from requests during the studies and planning phase, according to Chris Gilbert, BPA public utility specialist.

“When the queue was 3.8 [GW] one year and 3.6 the next, we could take a lot more uncertainty,” Gilbert said. “When the queue went to 11 and 17, that ability to take some uncertainty within the data of the request decreases. Because … if you study 17 GW with a lot of incomplete data, we’re going to get power flow results that are the wrong projects in the wrong location. They’re not sized right, they’re not the right ones … we can’t do that to the region. We’ve got to narrow that down.”

‘Higher Bar’

Staff presented a matrix during the workshop, outlining potential areas for adjustment.

Nichols-Kinas noted the options presented in the matrix are initial ideas, saying BPA “does not have a preferred option in terms of changes to the business model.” Any modifications need to “be heavily informed by a regional conversation,” she added.

The matrix left some areas unchanged, like the $10,000 point-to-point TSR processing fee. But the cost of participating in a commercial study could increase, Nichols-Kinas said.

Developers pay around $150 to $200/MW of a potential project to participate in cost studies. If BPA spends less money than collected on the study, the agency issues a refund at the end of the study, Nichols-Kinas noted.

Going forward, BPA could “add an element of a nonrefundable flat per-TSR fee somewhere in the range of $10,000 to $100,000” to collect the full cost of what the agency spends on conducting the studies, she said.

“Having an upfront fee that makes sure that we’re covering those costs, and that provides conceivably a higher bar to entry, maybe makes sense at this juncture,” Nichols-Kinas added.

Staff emphasized that BPA is seeking feedback on whether “this is a healthy way to manage the size of the queue and risk mitigation.”

Other ideas include adopting longer minimum-term service contracts and changing how costs associated with preliminary engineering agreements and environmental studies are handled.

Seattle City Light’s Michael Watkins said the utility would support longer transmission contracts “as a way to securitize projects.”

“Having longer transmission service requirements could be used in other aspects that you’re looking at as a mechanism for gauging seriousness of requests, or as a requirement for granting interim service,” Watkins said. “This could apply to several aspects that we’ve talked about today.”

House Hearing Examines Nuclear Energy’s Chances for Growth

Congressional representatives looked into the growing momentum for building new U.S. nuclear capacity during a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Energy.

“The importance of successful growth of the American nuclear energy cannot be understated,” Subcommittee Chair Bob Latta (R-Ohio) said during the Jan. 7 hearing. “What we need in this country is more energy. We need firm, reliable power, versatile power, and more of it.”

New power supply is needed for the artificial intelligence race and to meet demand from homes and other sources, Latta added. Nuclear Energy Institute CEO Maria Korsnick agreed that nuclear power is a good match for AI and its need for around-the-clock power.

“Nuclear plant owners are planning to add more than 8 GW of capacity through generation upgrades and plant restarts, and more than 23 GW of new nuclear by 2040,” Korsnick said. “These figures do not include substantial additional capacity being pursued by developers and other companies. The task now is to turn this momentum into deployment at scale.”

Members of both parties cited how the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act (S 870), passed during the most recent Congressional session, is helping the industry, while Republicans said executive orders from President Donald Trump would help expand an industry that saw its last “renaissance” aborted. (See Trump Orders Nuclear Regulatory Acceleration, Streamlining.)

“For too long, Republicans have supported nuclear power in theory but failed to follow through as soon as nuclear power starts to compete with fossil fuels,” Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) said. “For example, in the House’s version of the big, ugly bill passed out of this committee last year, every Republican on this committee voted to cut back the tax credit to support existing nuclear plants, and Republicans ultimately rescinded billions of dollars to support the Loan Programs Office.”

DOE’s Loan Programs Office is under its third temporary leader in a year, and President Trump has yet to nominate a permanent head, she added. The office has lost more than half of its professional staff due to voluntary resignations and cuts by the Department of Government Efficiency, Castor said.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) criticized how the Trump administration has impinged on the independence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, firing a former chair without cause while two current members say they could be fired at any time for making a decision the White House does not support.

“Unfortunately, that’s not all. The Trump administration issued an executive order demanding that all rulemakings from the NRC passed through the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for approval, putting Trump’s hand-picked lackeys over independent commissioners confirmed by the United States Senate,” Pallone said. “And this requirement has shadowed the transparency that historically has given the American people assurance that the NRC’s rules are strong and effective.”

While other climate solutions have seen an end to federal support over the past year, nuclear still has bipartisan support, and that should help in regard to policy certainty across election cycles, said Nuclear Innovation Alliance CEO Judi Greenwald.

“As commercialization efforts accelerate, how we deploy and scale nuclear energy must reinforce this credibility,” Greenwald said. “This means safeguarding regulatory integrity, transparency and public trust in the NRC. It also means adequate funding and staffing, as well as timely and effective implementation of the portfolio of nuclear commercialization policies and programs at the Department of Energy and across the federal government.”

‘Decades of Inactivity’

The NRC has a long history of being relatively insulated from politics, but the Trump administration’s actions are changing that. An executive order requires the agency’s rulemakings to be approved by OIRA.

“That process introduces several rule-making steps that mean that the public and the stakeholders won’t see certain processes that normally, in the past, we’ve seen as the rules go through the NRC, so we won’t see things that get to the commission, and we won’t see various steps,” Greenwald said. “We think that it would be much better if we maintain transparency.”

DOE’s loan guarantees, reactor demonstrations and fuels programs merit especially high priority, Greenwald said.

Support from DOE’s LPO and other federal tax incentives helped Southern Co. build the only recent nuclear reactors at its Plant Vogtle site in Georgia, said company Senior Vice President John Williams.

“Those are all things that would bring down the initial capital investment that’s required,” Williams said. “The second item is, as we expend that capital over the long construction period, we need to do things to protect the credit rating of the developer during that period of time. So, the ability to transfer those tax credits provides the cash flow necessary.”

The Vogtle project had major cost overruns, but it faced some major setbacks, such as the regulatory response after the tsunami hit the Fukushima plant in Japan in 2011, the bankruptcy of its contractor Westinghouse Electric, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Each of these macroeconomic events exacerbated the fact that the domestic nuclear development industry was already suffering from decades of inactivity,” Williams said.

Still, Southern did bring two new reactors online, and it saved 20% from applying lessons learned from Unit 3 to Unit 4, with most of the savings coming from the electrical installation process.

“We laser-mapped the rooms and essentially replicated those installations on Unit 4,” Williams said. “That was how we did that. We have all of that information, and we’re sharing that with anyone who wants to build new nuclear both in the United States and abroad, to make sure that they get all the lessons that we learned so that they can have a leg up in terms of their construction.”

Clean Energy Groups Sue Feds Over Solar, Wind Restrictions

The renewable energy industry and its advocates have initiated two more lawsuits against the Trump administration over its continuing campaign against wind and solar energy development.

The Oregon Environmental Council and others filed a complaint Dec. 18 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Internal Revenue Service over its changes to eligibility rules for federal tax credits for solar and wind.

Renew Northeast and others filed a complaint Dec. 23 in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Massachusetts against the U.S. Department of the Interior and other federal entities over the administration’s efforts to thwart permitting for solar and wind.

Along with their specific grievances, both complaints offer a larger argument: Wind and solar generation is a critical U.S. grid asset and offers the fastest path to the increased capacity the nation needs.

As of Jan. 7, the federal court database Pacer showed no response by the federal government to either complaint.

IRS Guidance

The first case challenges the IRS decision to eliminate the Five Percent Safe Harbor provision for claiming federal tax credits for solar projects greater than 1.5 MW maximum net output and for wind projects.

For more than a dozen years, the plaintiffs note, the IRS allowed developers to either spend 5% of the total project cost or begin significant physical work to demonstrate that they had begun construction and thereby safe harbor their eligibility for the tax credits that can offset 30 to 50% of a project’s cost, or even more.

The 2025 reconciliation bill crafted by President Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress will bring an end to these tax credits; the guidance issued by the IRS on Aug. 15 (Notice 2025-42) further limits them by recognizing only physical work as a qualifier.

Some renewables advocates were relieved that the changes were not more severe, but the plaintiffs charge that this was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. They say the guidance provides no justification for ending the Five Percent provision for wind and solar while retaining it for all other energy technologies.

The plaintiffs note that Trump on July 7 issued an executive order directing an end to subsidies for wind, solar and other green energy such as the 45Y and 48E tax credits. It specifically ordered the Secretary of the Treasury to strictly enforce termination of 45Y and 48E for wind and solar, and to take steps to ensure that the “beginning of construction” policies are not circumvented through artificial acceleration.

This has had the effect of reducing the number and size of projects that go forward, and of increasing project costs and risks for those that do, the plaintiffs write.

The Oregon Environmental Council is joined as plaintiff in the complaint by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen, Hopi Utilities Corp., Woven Energy, the City and County of San Francisco and the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel.

Along with the IRS, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent are named as defendants.

The complaint asks the court to vacate IRS Notice 2025-42 as arbitrary and capricious, and unlawful.

Restrictive Policies

The second case is directed more broadly at the hostile environment the Trump administration has created through a series of policy actions that delay or prevent permitting and construction of wind and solar facilities on public and private lands.

The actions are having catastrophic consequences for the entire sector as well as for consumers and the nation’s grid, the plaintiffs say.

They single out six agency actions that relegated wind and solar to “second-class status.” Each is “premised on open animus,” each lacks rational justification and each violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the plaintiffs say.

The six actions are:

    • The Interior order directing that any action pertaining to a wind or solar proposal subject to Interior oversight on public or private land be separately reviewed by the department’s secretary and two top subordinates. This has amounted to a freeze, the lawsuit states.
    • The Interior order that a proposed energy facility’s “capacity density” be considered and that only the most efficient uses of public lands be permitted. This disfavors sprawling wind and solar farms, which need vastly more acreage to produce the amount of electricity generated by non-renewables, the lawsuit states.
    • The Army Corps of Engineers’ similar capacity density order.
    • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prohibition on new eagle take permits for wind facilities and simultaneous aggressive campaign to enforce the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. This forces wind developers to either risk civil and criminal liability by operating without a permit, install costly avoidance technologies or shut down, the lawsuit states.
    • Interior’s ban on wind and solar developers accessing the Information for Planning and Consultation database, a publicly available, taxpayer-funded resource created and maintained by USFWS to minimize impacts on wildlife. This hinders the ability of wind and solar developers to obtain critical permits, and no other energy technology is subject to these restrictions, the lawsuit states.
    • Interior’s memorandum opinion reinterpreting subsection 8(p)(4) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prevent all interference from proposed offshore activities if that interference is more than de minimis or reasonable, and to re-evaluate existing offshore wind approvals by this standard. This has created a de facto moratorium on approval and construction of new offshore wind facilities and is being used to justify revocation of existing permits, the lawsuit states.

These actions “are inflicting cascading and irreparable economic and operational harms on plaintiffs’ member companies,” the lawsuit states. They have blocked the pipeline for new projects, caused delays and cancellations for existing projects, and inflicted billions of dollars of increased costs and losses, the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs ask the court to declare the six actions unlawful, vacate and set them aside, and permanently block their implementation.

Renew Northeast is joined by fellow plaintiffs Alliance for Clean Energy New York, Renewable Northwest, Southern Renewable Energy Association, Interwest Energy Alliance, Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition Action, Clean Grid Alliance and Carolinas Clean Energy Business Association.

Named as defendants along with Interior are the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Fish and Wildlife Service, Army Corps of Engineers, and heads or high-ranking officials of each of those federal entities.

Enviros Warn NIPSCO Against Rebuilding Coal Unit on DOE Emergency Order

Earthjustice has warned Northern Indiana Public Service Co. against making costly repairs to its R.M. Schahfer Generating Station to keep it running through spring in accordance with a federal emergency order.

The environmental law organization, representing Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Just Transition Northwest Indiana, Hoosier Environmental Council and Sierra Club, sent a joint letter to NIPSCO, telling the utility to think twice before pursuing expensive fixes for the non-functioning Unit 18.

DOE has put a freeze on multiple coal plants’ planned retirements, including Units 17 and 18 at R.M. Schahfer Generating Station. (See DOE Orders Two Indiana Coal Plants to Stay Open Through Winter.) NIPSCO planned to idle the units Dec. 31, 2025; they now must operate through March 23, 2026.

“There are several legal bases to conclude that DOE lacks authority under Section 202(c) to direct NIPSCO to revive the generation facility. We intend to litigate the recovery of any imprudently incurred expenditures,” Earthjustice wrote in the Dec. 30 letter addressed to Erin Whitehead, NIPSCO’s vice president of regulatory policy and major accounts.

Earthjustice said Unit 18 is broken and restoring it likely would entail significant equipment repairs. It said before NIPSCO undertakes repairs, it should examine whether they would be sensible.

Earthjustice pointed out that Schahfer’s Unit 18 underwent a 2,890-hour forced outage from Feb. 16, 2025, to June 23, 2025, due to a turbine blade separating from its root. The unit confronted a second, 1,996-hour outage beginning July 9, 2025, this time because of damage to an upper section of condenser tubes.

“We expect that the expenditure to procure and install the referenced long-lead time equipment to revive Unit 18 — instead of allowing the units to retire as previously planned — will be substantial,” Earthjustice said in its letter.

The law organization argued DOE exceeded its authority and treaded on state jurisdiction by effectively ordering the renovation of a rundown and worn-out coal unit. Earthjustice said while Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act permits temporary connection in emergencies, it does not authorize the physical rebuilding of a generating unit. It added that Congress has never given DOE that power.

‘State of Disrepair’

“Because the plant is at the end of its useful life, with years of forgone maintenance and capital expenditures, and in a state of disrepair, the department’s order essentially requires rebuilding significant parts of the plant. Nowhere does the statute empower the department to issue such directive, and the department’s order is facially ultra vires,” Earthjustice told NIPSCO.

Earthjustice said in addition to NIPSCO needing FERC approval for a cost allocation to run the plant (under which only prudent costs can be recovered), Indiana has a federally mandated costs law. Under that state law, any costs cleared for recovery must be just and reasonable. Expenditures deemed unnecessary, excessive or imprudent, along with expenses that aren’t considered useful to ratepayers, are not to be recouped.

“A reasonable utility management does not in good faith expend money in response to an unlawful directive, particularly when the utility management is on notice of the unlawful nature of the directive,” Earthjustice and others wrote.

“The Trump administration’s unlawful emergency orders are not a blank check for NIPSCO to be paid by billpayers. NIPSCO is required to make prudent decisions about incurring costs to repair and operate its coal-fired units. We will not let NIPSCO simply add unneeded, unlawful and very high costs to peoples’ electricity bills without a fight,” Earthjustice attorney Sameer Doshi said in a statement to RTO Insider.

NIPSCO said its compliance with the DOE’s directive is mandatory and it’s reviewing the “details of this order to assess its impact on our employees, customers and company to ensure compliance.” The utility told RTO Insider that while the decommissioning timeline for the Schahfer plant is altered, its long-term plan to “transition to a more sustainable energy future remains unchanged.”

“Guided by our integrated resource plan, NIPSCO and NiSource recognize the importance of reliable and affordable energy as we manage costs and adapt to changing regulatory requirements. Our commitment to providing safe and dependable energy remains steadfast both now and in the future,” NIPSCO said in a statement provided to RTO Insider.

NIPSCO did not respond to RTO Insider’s request for comment on whether it plans to repair Unit 18 to comply with the order, the extent or estimated cost of the repairs, whether it plans to recover potential costs from ratepayers or whether it’s planning to make a FERC filing to recover costs. The utility also did not address RTO Insider’s question on whether it’s appropriate for the coal units’ costs to be allocated to the entire MISO Midwest region, as Michigan’s J.H. Campbell coal plant is poised to do. (See FERC Rules Costs of Mich. Coal Plant Extension Can be Split Among 11 States.)

‘Needs Rebuilt’

Unit 18 apparently needs extensive turbine work.

At the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s (IURC) 2025 Winter Reliability teleconference, a NIPSCO executive acknowledged that Unit 18 is in an extended “forced outage” and it would take time and effort to restore to service.

“Frankly that unit, it needs rebuilt,” NIPSCO President and COO Vince Parisi described Unit 18 to the IURC. “It’s just the reality of that unit being close to retirement. We’re not completely unprepared, but it will take time to get long-lead time items in to be able to make the repairs necessary.”

Parisi said the work would involve long-lead time equipment that would have to be ordered and repairs could take six months or longer to get the unit to be able to operate on an extended time horizon.

NIPSCO also said Unit 17 likely would require work to stay online.

Following questions from the IURC, NIPSCO executives said they likely would roll potential repair costs stemming from the DOE order into a deferral account, like Consumers Energy is doing with its J.H. Campbell plant.

NIPSCO, anticipating the emergency 202 order, told the IURC in early December that it reached out to coal providers to ensure a fuel supply.

The utility plans to convert the Schahfer station to gas-only to supply electricity to data centers, including Amazon Web Services’ planned, $15 billion campus. The Schahfer plant is composed of two natural gas units in addition to the two older, large coal units.

Indiana’s Citizens Action Coalition reported the most dramatic electric bill increase in two decades in Indiana in a July 2025 roundup. The group said statewide averages were up more than $28/month (17.5%). NIPSCO customers were hardest hit at about $50/month (26.7%) due to climbing fuel costs, coal plant cleanups and investments in infrastructure.

Calif. Electricity Consumption Headed off the Charts, CEC Forecast Shows

California’s electricity consumption is projected to increase dramatically over the coming decades due in large part to planned artificial intelligence data centers, although questions remain about how many of those data centers actually will be built.

The Golden State’s consumption could increase from about 280 TWh in 2025 to more than 450 TWh in 2045, California Energy Commission staff said in a presentation during a Jan. 5 online workshop.

This steep increase would be unprecedented: In 2005, electricity consumption in California was about 270 TWh — almost the same as in 2025.

The consumption forecast is part of the CEC’s demand forecast for the 2025 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR). The CEC revised the demand forecast last month because it received new information about data centers and known loads.

The initial 2025 IEPR forecast results used data from September 2025 that had been provided by some of the state’s utilities. The revised results included December data from these utilities.

For data centers, the state’s projected capacity in 2039 increased from about 3,993 MW using the September data to about 4,280 MW based on the December data in a “mid-case” scenario. The “high-case” scenario showed an increase from about 5,944 MW to about 6,510 MW.

CEC staff would like to perform a more detailed analysis of data centers in the future, CEC Energy System Planning Coordinator Mathew Cooper said during the workshop. For example, staff want to look at “different sizes of data centers” and how those variations affect forecast results, Cooper said.

In a Dec. 31 letter to the CEC, Sanya Kwatra, an engineer with the California Public Utilities Commission’s Public Advocates Office (Cal Advocates), requested the CEC verify the data center applications that have been categorized as having signed agreements. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) showed about 2,000 MW of data center applications with signed agreements as of September 2025, but 4,000 MW as of December 2025, Kwatra said.

The CEC decided not to make any changes to the data center forecast based on the comments submitted by Cal Advocates, CEC Information Officer Gilbert Magallon told RTO Insider in an email. It is “very rare for a project to withdraw its application in between signing the engineering study and signing the interconnection agreement,” Magallon said.

At the CEC’s Dec. 17 IEPR commissioner workshop on energy demand forecast results, agency Vice Chair Siva Gunda said it is important to think about “the balancing act of affordability and reliability.”

“If we are in an untenable situation this year, we recognize that there’s these large known loads that most likely are going to come in 2025, but maybe not,” Gunda said. “I want to be super conscious about the liquidity in the market in terms of the total energy supply in California and the West and how that impacts the resource adequacy prices. That’s a very important thing to think about.”

In the updated data, PG&E’s capacity request increased from about 12,000 MW to about 14,300 MW, while Southern California Edison’s decreased from about 6,000 MW to about 4,800 MW. CAISO’s annual coincident peak load increased from about 48,000 MW in 2025 to more than 70,000 MW in 2045.

Data Center Costs

In the Cal Advocates letter, Kwatra said also that the CEC should provide a more detailed explanation for how it incorporated data center costs in its comparison of statewide average electricity rates.

In the letter, Kwatra noted the CEC said it incorporated the preliminary estimates of the costs of data centers into the statewide average electricity rates, with the estimates based in part on data from a PG&E application, which is being used to build out the utility’s transmission revenue requirement (TRR).

Certain entities disputed PG&E’s data, specifically how it might be underestimating the cost of data center interconnections, she said.

The CPUC has not yet ruled on a proceeding involving PG&E’s data, so “the CEC should avoid relying on PG&E’s workpapers as factual data,” Kwatra said.

Instead, the CEC should provide more information about what data it is using and how it is using this data to build out the TRR, Kwatra added. Doing so will “help enhance transparency related to the cost impact of data centers on the transmission grid,” she added.

In the 2026 IEPR forecast update, the CEC will continue to monitor energization dates of uncompleted projects and will continue to analyze meter data, among other tasks, staff said at the Jan. 5 workshop.