CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The demand the huge Atlantic Coast Pipeline was intended to meet is disappearing, according to documents from the corporations behind the project.

Dominion and Duke Energy own almost all of the pipeline, as well as the electric utilities it would supply with natural gas. When applying for a federal permit, they argued it was needed to meet rising electricity demand in North Carolina and coastal Virginia.

But Cathy Kunkel, an energy analyst with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said utility filings in those states now show the outlook has changed dramatically - in part because of competition from cheap, renewable energy.

"Dominion is not projecting any increase in natural-gas demand until 2032,” Kunkel said. “Duke is still planning to build some natural-gas plants, but most of that has shifted to the late 2020s."

The energy companies say they need more pipeline capacity to move fracked gas out of the Marcellus and Utica fields of northern West Virginia, where the price for it is artificially depressed by a transportation bottleneck.

The 600-mile pipeline across the three states has faced a number of setbacks, including lawsuits by landowners and conservationists. It was recently announced that the total cost of the project would rise to $7.5 billion, and its opening would be delayed until 2021.

If the builders can get state utility regulators' approval, they can shift the full expense of the line onto ratepayers, along with a guaranteed profit. But Kunkel said investors in the utilities may be starting to worry about the financial risks.

"The project has been delayed by these court challenges, it's also over-budget,” she said. “And if the state regulators say, 'You clearly don't need all of the gas capacity that you signed up for here; we're not going to let you charge it to your ratepayers,' then that would be a very significant blow."

Kunkel said the incentives tend to make utilities and pipeline companies overestimate demand and overbuild capacity. She said that's becoming a more serious issue as climate change poses increasing risks.

Kunkel helped write the analysis for a report from IEEFA and Oil Change International.



get more stories like this via email

Minnesota is cited in a new research brief outlining the obstacles America would face in trying to reopen coal plants, an idea prioritized by the Trump administration.

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order aiming to boost coal production, despite coal's shrinking presence in the energy sector.

The administration said the move can help meet growing electricity demand with the emergence of data centers but the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis predicts giving coal-fired power plants new life would be costly.

Dennis Wamsted, energy analyst at the institute, said it does not make sense.

"It's not an 'evil conspiracy' to push coal out of the market," Wamsted pointed out. "The reality is that coal is the most expensive resource, and so it is rightfully used the least, or used last."

He points to Xcel Energy's Sherco facility near the Twin Cities, a coal plant being phased out and replaced with a massive solar operation. Wamsted noted utilities are planning for other sources because they have proved to be reliable and less costly. The analysis found 24 of the 102 recently closed U.S. coal plants are already torn down and restarting others would require big investments due to their age.

Wamsted added time is another problem because of the maintenance backlog in getting coal plants back online or in some cases rebuilt. He argued investors would not be interested in waiting to get an older plant reopened only to shut it down again because of the declining appetite for coal.

"In 20 years or 30 years, that plant, which would still be relatively new, would probably be what we call a stranded asset," Wamsted stressed.

Like clean energy infrastructure, Wamsted said ratepayers would be asked by utilities to cover the construction costs for increasing coal production. The difference, he explained, is sources like wind and solar are poised to stick around much longer and they do not have the price volatility linked with fossil fuels.

A bill to promote virtual power plants goes before the California State Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee next week. Virtual power plants are networks of home energy devices like smart thermostats, stationary home batteries, and electric vehicles that can be used as power sources during peak hours, which lowers the amount of power that electric utilities have to provide.

Assemblymember John Harabedian, D-Pasadena, said virtual power plants would reduce the need to build costly transmission lines and polluting natural gas plants.

"This bill, really in utilizing virtual power plants, is about affordability and reliability and sustainability. It's a cost-saving measure, and it's also an easier way to meet demand throughout the state during peak hours," he explained.

At least 300,000 Californians are already getting paid as part of the Demand Side Grid Support program, agreement that allows the utilities to pull power stored in their smart devices' batteries to power their home.

Harabedian said Assembly Bill 740 would direct the California Energy Commission to make plans to expand the use of virtual power plants, following the success of a pilot program.

"It has prevented blackouts. It has delivered over 500 megawatts of capacity, about the same as three gas peaker plants, and has saved millions of dollars already," he continued. "So, the pilot program has been undeniably successful. We just need to scale it."

A recent study found that virtual power plants could save California residents $750 million per year in traditional power system costs. Some are concerned that utilities may earn less money if the programs expand. So far, there is no registered opposition to the bill.


get more stories like this via email

While Nevada ranks among the top states for electric vehicle sales, one local business says it is seeing less demand for charging stations, and has to make some tough decisions as the Trump administration cuts climate and infrastructure investments. Allegiant Electric LLC in Las Vegas installs residential and commercial EV charging stations.

Andrea Vigil, chief operating officer of Allegiant Electric, said they were ramping up for a project for the U.S. Postal Service - but were notified it had been shelved. It's just one of the setbacks they've faced as Trump rescinds unspent Inflation Reduction Act funds. Vigil said not only will the clean energy economy take a hit, so will businesses like hers.

"We've already had to reduce some of our employees just because of, you know, the fact that there has been a decline in the installation requests on the EV chargers," she explained. "That is actually a big part of our business."

EVs accounted for about 8% of new car sales in the U.S. last year, partly thanks to Biden-era tax incentives and policies that sparked buyers' interest. Automakers had also prioritized EV production. But with Trump in the White House, Vigil says she and her husband will have to pivot on their business strategies.

Vigil added that Trump's tariffs have also been difficult to adapt to, and they've already noticed their material costs skyrocket.

"A lot of the material on the electrical side comes from Mexico and it needs to cross over, back and forth, eight times just before it's able to get into the United States," she continued. "We just bought a roll of wire, it was just a fourth of what we normally get - and the price has nearly tripled."

Paul Bordenkircher, president of Nevada EV Association, said due to the president's relationship with Elon Musk, many folks in the market for an EV are steering away from Tesla. He says other brands, like Hyundai and Kia, are profiting.

"I see other brands picking up some of the uptake with, unfortunately, Tesla's decline in sales. Because people are discovering that yes, there are other options, that EVs don't just exist from the Tesla brand," he contended.