Two utility groups, including units of Southern Co and SCANA Corp, said they filed applications for separate licenses to build and operate new nuclear reactors in Georgia and South Carolina to meet growing demand for electricity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Co said it filed an application with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a combined construction and operating license (COL) to build two new reactors at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant near Waynesboro, Georgia, 105 miles southwest of Columbia, South Carolina.
Vogtle is owned by Southern's largest utility, Georgia Power, and three public power agencies: Oglethorpe Power Corp, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and Dalton Utilities.
SCANA's South Carolina Electric & Gas Co (SCE&G) unit and Santee Cooper, a state-owned utility, filed a COL application for a license for up to two reactors at the Summer Nuclear Station in Jenkinsville, 25 miles northwest of Columbia.
The filings were the eight and ninth applications submitted to the NRC after a three-decade lapse in U.S. nuclear construction. The NRC's review will take three to four years. By 2010, the agency expects to receive as many as 22 COL applications for 33 new reactors.
Utilities are pursuing new nuclear generation to take advantage of financial incentives included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and growing concern about carbon-dioxide emissions, blamed for climate change.
Southern and SCANA indicated they will use Toshiba Corp's Westinghouse AP1000 technology. The NRC certified the AP1000 design after nearly 20 years of analysis, Southern said.
Each AP 1000 reactor can generate about 1,100 megawatts. One megawatt supplies about 500 homes in the South.
Neither Southern nor SCANA gave a price estimate for their proposals. However, other utilities have estimated the cost of adding two new AP1000 reactors at $12 billion to $14 billion in filings with state regulators in Florida.
"We expect demand for electricity in the Southeast, specifically in Georgia, to increase significantly by 2015 and beyond," said Southern Nuclear president Barnie Beasley, who is expected to retire later this year.
In addition to NRC licenses, the utilities need numerous other regulatory approvals before deciding whether to move ahead.
Georgia Power is also soliciting bids for power needed by 2016-2017 through the Georgia Public Service Commission.
Earlier this year, SCE&G said it delayed its NRC filing while studying other generation options due to skyrocketing costs for projects requiring large amounts of steel and concrete, major components of nuclear plants.
The South Carolina utilities also said nuclear power is needed to supply growing demand and meet more stringent emission regulation. "We're confident that new nuclear is the right decision for South Carolina," said Kevin Marsh, SCE&G president, in a statement.
Tucson Electric Power Coal Phaseout advances an Integrated Resource Plan to exit Springerville coal by 2032, lift renewables past 70 percent by 2035, add wind, solar, battery storage, and cut carbon emissions 80 percent.
Key Points
A 2032 coal exit and 2035 plan to lift renewables above 70 percent, add wind, solar, storage, and cut CO2 80 percent.
✅ Coal purchases end at Springerville units by 2032
✅ Renewables exceed 70 percent of load by 2035
✅ 80 percent CO2 cut from 2005 baseline via wind, solar, storage
In a dramatic policy shift, Tucson Electric Power says it will stop using coal to generate electricity by 2032 and will increase renewable energy's share of its energy load to more than 70% by 2035.
As part of that change, the utility will stop buying electricity from its two units at its coal-fired Springerville Generating Station by 2032. The plant, TEP's biggest power source, provides about 35% of its energy.
The utility already had planned to start up two New Mexico wind farms and a solar storage plant in the Tucson area by next year. The new plan calls for adding an additional 2,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity by 2035.
The utility's switch from fossil fuels is spelled out in the plan, submitted to the Arizona Corporation Commission, amid shifts in federal power plant rules that could affect implementation. Called an Integrated Resource Plan, it would reduce TEP's carbon dioxide emissions 80% by 2035 compared with 2005 levels.
The plan drew generally positive reviews from a number of environmentalists and other representatives of an advisory committee that had worked with TEP for a year.
Two commissioners, Chairman Bob Burns and Tucsonan Lea Marquez Peterson, also generally praised the plan, although they held off on final judgment.
University of Arizona researchers said the plan would likely meet the utility's share of the worldwide goal of holding down global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius, or about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above pre-industrial levels, even as studies find that climate change threatens grid reliability in many regions.
But a representative of AARP and the Pima Council on Aging expressed concern because the plan would require 1% annual electric rate increases a year to put into effect.
Officials in the eastern Arizona town of Springerville aren't happy.
And Sierra Club official Sandy Bahr said the plan doesn't move fast enough to get TEP off coal. She listed 14 separate units of various Western coal-fired plants that are scheduled to shut down sooner than 2032, many in the 2020s.
But TEP says the plan best balances costs and environmental benefits compared with 24 others it reviewed.
"We know our customers want safe, reliable energy from resources that are both affordable and environmentally responsible. TEP's 2020 Integrated Resource Plan will help us maintain that delicate balance," TEP CEO David Hutchens wrote in the forward to the plan.
The plan isn't legally binding but is aimed at sending a signal to regulators and the public about TEP's future direction. TEP and other regulated Arizona utilities update such plans every three years.
TEP has been one of the West's more fossil-fuel-friendly utilities. It stuck with coal even as many other utilities were moving away from it, including Alliant Energy's carbon-neutral plan to cut emissions and costs, and as the Sierra Club called on utilities to move beyond what it termed a highly polluting energy source that emits large quantities of heat-trapping greenhouse gases linked by scientists to global warming.
Last year, TEP got 13% of its electricity from renewables such as wind farms and solar plants along with photovoltaic solar panels atop individual homes. Fossil fuels coal and natural gas supplied the rest, a University of Arizona study paid for by TEP found.
Economics, not just emissions, a big factor
TEP's previous resource plan, from 2017, called for boosting renewable use to 30% by 2030 and to cut coal to 38% of its electric load by then from 69% in 2017, reflecting broader 2017 utility trends across the industry.
A TEP official said last week the utility is heading in a different direction not only due to concerns about greenhouse gas emissions but because of changing economics.
"For the last several decades, coal was the most economical resource. It was the lowest-cost resource to supply energy for our customers, and it wasn't really close," said Jeff Yockey, TEP's resource planning director.
But over the past few years, first natural gas prices and more recently solar and wind energy prices have fallen dramatically, he said.
Their prices are projected to keep falling, along with the cost of battery-fueled storage of solar energy for use when the sun is down, he said.
"Coal just isn't the most economical resource" now, Yockey said.
Yet the utility still needs, for now, the extra energy capacity that coal provides, he said, even as other states outline ways to improve grid reliability through targeted investments.
"Being a utility with no nuclear or hydro(electric) energy, with coal, there is reliability, a fuel on the ground, 30 or 90 days supply," he said. "It's the only source not subject to disruption in the next hour. It's our only long-term, stable fuel supply. Over time, we will be able to overcome that."
UA researchers, community panel worked on plan
TEP paid the UA $100,000 to have three researchers prepare two reports, one comparing 24 different proposals and a second comparing TEP's fossil fuel/renewable split with those of other utilities.
Also, the utility appointed an advisory council representing environmental, business and government interests that met regularly to guide TEP in producing the plan. The utility chose a preferred energy "portfolio," Yockey said.
The goal "was very much about basically achieving significant emissions reductions as quickly as we can and as cost effectively as we can," he said. TEP wanted the biggest cumulative emission cut possible over 15 years.
"If it was just about cost, we wouldn't have selected the portfolio that we selected. It wasn't the lowest cost portfolio."
UA assistant research professors Ben McMahan and Will Holmgren said combined carbon dioxide emission reductions from TEP's new plan over 15 years would be expected to hit the Paris accord's 2-degree target.
"There is considerable uncertainty about what will happen between now and 2050, but the preferred portfolio's early start on reductions and lowest cumulative emissions is certainly a positive sign that well below 2C is achievable," the researchers said in an email.
Environmentalists pleased, but some want coal cut sooner
The Sierra Club, Western Resource Advocates, the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project and Pima County offered varying degrees of praise for the new TEP plan.
In a memo Friday, County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry congratulated TEP for "the comprehensive, inclusive and transparent process" used to develop the plan.
Because of UA's involvement, TEP's advisory council and the public "can feel confident that the utility is on track to make significant progress in curbing greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change," Huckelberry wrote.
The TEP plan "is the most aggressive commitment to reducing emissions by a utility in Arizona," said Autumn Johnson of Western Resource Advocates in a news release.
"Adding clean energy generation and storage while accelerating the retirement of coal units will ensure a healthier and better future for Arizonans," said Johnson, an energy policy analyst in Phoenix.
The Sierra Club will have a technical expert review the plan and already wants more energy savings, said Bahr, director of the group's Grand Canyon chapter. But overall, this plan is a step in the right direction for TEP, she said.
By comparison, Arizona Public Service's new resource plan only calls for 45% renewable energy by 2030, Bahr noted, while California regulators consider more power plants to ensure reliability. APS committed to going coal-free by 2031.
A Sierra Club proposal that the UA reviewed called for TEP to quit coal by 2027.
But TEP analyzed that proposal and concluded it would require $300 million in investments and would reduce the utility's cumulative emissions by only 2.4 million tons, to 70.2 million tons by 2035, Yockey said.
The Sierra Club plan was the most expensive portfolio investigated, Yockey said.
"The difference is in the timing. We still have a fair amount of value in our coal plants which we need to depreciate, which we do over time," Yockey said. "Trying to replace the capacity that coal provides in the near term with storage and solar is very expensive, although those costs are declining."
Seniors on fixed incomes could be hurt, advocate says
Rene Pina, an advisory council member representing two senior citizen organizations, praised the plan's goals but was concerned about impacts of even 1% annual rate increases on elderly people on fixed incomes.
They can't always handle such an increase, he said.
One possible fix is that TEP could ease eligibility requirements for its low-income energy assistance program, aligning with equity-focused electricity regulation principles, to allow more seniors to benefit, said Pina, representing AARP and the Pima Council on Aging.
"The program is structured so it just barely disqualifies most of our seniors. Their social security pension is just barely over the low-income limit. It can easily be adjusted without any problems to the utility," Pina said.
Advisory council member Rob Lamb, an engineer with GHLN, an architecture-engineering firm, said he was very pleased with TEP's plan.
"One of the things a lot of people don't realize when they put together a plan like that, is they have to balance environment with 'Hey, what's the reliability of service? Are we going to be able to keep our rates for something that will work?'" Lamb said.
Octopus Energy and DTEK Partnership explores licensing the Kraken platform to rebuild Ukraine's power grid, enabling real-time analytics, smart-home integration, renewable energy orchestration, and distributed resilience amid ongoing attacks on critical energy infrastructure.
Key Points
Collaboration to deploy Kraken and renewables to modernize Ukraine's grid with analytics, smart control, and resilience.
✅ Kraken licensing for grid operations and customer analytics
✅ Shift to distributed solar, wind, and smart-home devices
✅ Real-time monitoring to mitigate outages and cyber risks
Octopus Energy, a prominent UK energy firm, has begun preliminary conversations with Ukraine's DTEK regarding potential collaboration to refurbish Ukraine's heavily damaged electric infrastructure as ongoing strikes threaten the power grid across the country.
Persistent assaults by Russia on Ukraine's power network, including a five-hour attack on Kyiv's grid, have led to significant electricity shortages in numerous regions.
Octopus Energy, the largest electricity and second-largest gas supplier in the UK, collaborates with energy firms in 17 countries using its Kraken software platform, and Ukraine joined Europe's power grid with unprecedented speed to bolster resilience. This platform is currently being trialled by the Abu Dhabi National Energy Company (Taqa) for power and water customers in the UAE.
A spokesperson from Octopus revealed to The National that the company is "in the early stages of discussions with DTEK to explore potential collaborative opportunities.”
One of the possibilities being considered is licensing Octopus's Kraken technology platform to DTEK, a platform that presently serves 54 million customer accounts globally.
Russian drone and missile attacks, which initially targeted Ukrainian ports and export channels last summer, shifted focus to energy infrastructure by October, ahead of the winter season as authorities worked to protect electricity supply before winter across the country.
These initial talks between Octopus CEO Greg Jackson and DTEK CEO Maxim Timchenko took place at the World Economic Forum in Davos, set against the backdrop of these ongoing challenges.
DTEK, Ukraine's leading private energy provider, might integrate Octopus's advanced Kraken software to manage and optimize data systems ranging from large power plants to smart-home devices, with a growing focus on protecting the grid against emerging threats.
Kraken is described by Octopus as a comprehensive technology platform that supports the entire energy supply chain, from generation to billing. It enables detailed analytics, real-time monitoring, and control of energy devices like heat pumps and electric vehicles, underscoring the need to counter cyber weapons that can disrupt power grids as systems become more connected.
Octopus Energy, with its focus on renewable sources, can also assist Ukraine in transitioning its power infrastructure from centralized coal-fired power stations, which are vulnerable targets, to a more distributed network of smaller solar and wind projects.
DTEK, serving approximately 3.5 million customers in the Kyiv, Donetsk, and Dnipro regions, is already engaged in renewable initiatives. The company constructed a wind farm in southern Ukraine within nine months last year and has plans for additional projects in Italy and Croatia.
Emphasizing the importance of rebuilding Ukraine's economy, Timchenko recently expressed at Davos the need for Ukrainian and international companies to work together to create a sustainable future for Ukraine, noting that incidents such as Russian hackers accessed U.S. control rooms highlight the urgency.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
BC Hydro Electricity Imports shape CleanBC claims as Powerex trades cross-border electricity, blending hydro with coal and gas supplies, affecting emissions, grid carbon intensity, and how electric vehicles and households assess "clean" power.
Key Points
Powerex buys power for BC Hydro, mixing hydro with coal and gas, shifting emissions and affecting CleanBC targets.
✅ Powerex trades optimize price, not carbon intensity
✅ Imports can include coal- and gas-fired generation
✅ Emissions affect EV and CleanBC decarbonization claims
British Columbians naturally assume they’re using clean power when they fire up holiday lights, juice up a cell phone or plug in a shiny new electric car.
That’s the message conveyed in advertisements for the CleanBC initiative launched by the NDP government, amid indications that residents are split on going nuclear according to a survey, which has spent $3.17 million on a CleanBC “information campaign,” including almost $570,000 for focus group testing and telephone town halls, according to the B.C. finance ministry.
“We’ll reduce air pollution by shifting to clean B.C. energy,” say the CleanBC ads, which feature scenic photos of hydro reservoirs. “CleanBC: Our Nature. Our Power. Our Future.”
Yet despite all the bumph, British Columbians have no way of knowing if the electricity they use comes from a coal-fired plant in Alberta or Wyoming, a nuclear plant in Washington, a gas-fired plant in California or a hydro dam in B.C.
Here’s why.
BC Hydro’s wholly-owned corporate subsidiary, Powerex Corp., exports B.C. power when prices are high and imports power from other jurisdictions when prices are low.
In 2018, for instance, B.C. imported more electricity than it exported — not because B.C. has a power shortage (it has a growing surplus due to the recent spate of mill closures and the commissioning of two new generating stations in B.C.) but because Powerex reaps bigger profits when BC Hydro slows down generators to import cheaper power, especially at night.
“B.C. buys its power from outside B.C., which we would argue is not clean,” says Martin Mullany, interim executive director for Clean Energy BC.
“A good chunk of the electricity we use is imported,” Mullany says. “In reality we are trading for brown power” — meaning power generated from conventional ‘dirty’ sources such as coal and gas.
Wyoming, which generates almost 90 per cent of its power from coal, was among the 12 U.S. states that exported power to B.C. last year. (Notably, B.C. did not export any electricity to Wyoming in 2018.)
Utah, where coal-fired power plants produce 70 per cent of the state’s energy amid debate over the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity, and Montana, which derives about 55 per cent of its power from coal, also exported power to B.C. last year.
So did Nebraska, which gets 63 per cent of its power from coal, 15 per cent from nuclear plants, 14 per cent from wind and three per cent from natural gas.
Coal is responsible for about 23 per cent of the power generated in Arizona, another exporter to B.C., while gas produces about 44 per cent of the electricity in that state.
In 2017, the latest year for which statistics are available, electricity imports to B.C. totalled just over 1.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, according to the B.C. environment ministry — roughly the equivalent of putting 255,000 new cars on the road, using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s calculation of 4.71 tonnes of annual carbon emissions for a standard passenger vehicle.
These figures far outstrip the estimated local and upstream emissions from the contested Woodfibre LNG plant in Squamish that is expected to release annual emissions equivalent to 170,000 new cars on the road.
Import emissions cast a new light on B.C.’s latest “milestone” announcement that 30,000 electric cars are now among 3.7 million registered vehicles in the province.
BC Electric Vehicles Announcement Horgan Heyman Mungall Weaver
In November of 2018 the province announced a new target to have all new light-duty cars and trucks sold to be zero-emission vehicles by the year 2040. Photo: Province of B.C. / Flickr
“Making sure more of the vehicles driven in the province are powered by BC Hydro’s clean electricity is one of the most important steps to reduce [carbon] pollution,” said the November 28 release from the energy ministry, noting that electrification has prompted a first call for power in 15 years from BC Hydro.
Mullany points out that Powerex’s priority is to make money for the province and not to reduce emissions.
“It’s not there for the cleanest outcome,” he said. “At some time we have to step up to say it’s either the money or the clean power, which is more important to us?”
Electricity bought and sold by little-known, unregulated Powerex
These transactions are money-makers for Powerex, an opaque entity that is exempt from B.C.’s freedom of information laws.
Little detailed information is available to the public about the dealings of Powerex, which is overseen by a board of directors comprised of BC Hydro board members and BC Hydro CEO and president Chris O’Reilly.
According to BC Hydro’s annual service plan, Powerex’s net income ranged from $59 million to $436 million from 2014 to 2018.
“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.”
Powerex’s CEO Tom Bechard — the highest paid public servant in the province — took home $939,000 in pay and benefits last year, earning $430,000 of his executive compensation through a bonus and holdback based on his individual and company performance.
“The problem is that all of the trade goes on at Powerex and Powerex is an unregulated entity,” Mullany says.
“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.”
In 2018, Powerex exported 8.7 million megawatt hours of electricity to the U.S. for a total value of almost $570 million, according to data from the Canada Energy Regulator. That same year, Powerex imported 9.6 million megawatt hours of electricity from the U.S. for almost $360 million.
Powerex sold B.C.’s publicly subsidized power for an average of $87 per megawatt hour in 2018, according to the Canada Energy Regulator. It imported electricity for an average of $58 per megawatt hour that year.
In an emailed statement in response to questions from The Narwhal, BC Hydro said “there can be a need to import some power to meet our electricity needs” due to dam reservoir fluctuations during the year and from year to year.
‘Impossible’ to determine if electricity is from coal or wind power
Emissions associated with electricity imports are on average “significantly lower than the emissions of a natural gas generating plant because we mostly import electricity from hydro generation and, increasingly, power produced from wind and solar,” BC Hydro claimed in its statement.
But U.S. energy economist Robert McCullough says there’s no way to distinguish gas and coal-fired U.S. power exports to B.C. from wind or hydro power, noting that “electrons lack labels.”
Similarly, when B.C. imports power from Alberta, where generators are shifting to gas and 48.5 per cent of electricity production is coal-fired and 38 per cent comes from natural gas, there’s no way to tell if the electricity is from coal, wind or gas, McCullough says.
“It really is impossible to make that determination.”
Wyoming Gilette coal pits NASA
The Gillette coal pits in Wyoming, one of the largest coal-producers in the U.S. Photo: NASA Earth Observatory
Neither the Canada Energy Regulator nor Statistics Canada could provide annual data on electricity imports and exports between B.C. and Alberta.
But you can watch imports and exports in real time on this handy Alberta website, which also lists Alberta’s power sources.
In 2018, California, Washington and Oregon supplied considerably more power to B.C. than other states, according to data from Canada Energy Regulator.
Washington, where about one-quarter of generated power comes from fossil fuels, led the pack, with more than $339 million in electricity exports to B.C.
California, which still gets more than half of its power from gas-fired plants even though it leads the U.S. in renewable energy with substantial investments in wind, solar and geothermal, was in second place, selling about $18.4 million worth of power to B.C.
And Oregon, which produces about 43 per cent of its power from natural gas and six per cent from coal, exported about $6.2 million worth of electricity to B.C. last year.
By comparison, Nebraska’s power exports to B.C. totalled about $1.6 million, Montana’s added up to $1.3 million, Nevada’s were about $706,000 and Wyoming’s were about $346,000.
Clean electrons or dirty electrons?
Dan Woynillowicz, deputy director of Clean Energy Canada, which co-chaired the B.C. government’s Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council, says B.C. typically exports power to other jurisdictions during peak demand.
Gas-fired plants and hydro power can generate electricity quickly, while coal-fired power plants take longer to ramp up and wind power is variable, Woynillowicz notes.
“When you need power fast and there aren’t many sources that can supply it you’re willing to pay more for it.”
Woynillowicz says “the odds are high” that B.C. power exports are displacing dirty power.
Powering Ontario's Growth accelerates clean electricity, pairing solar, wind, and hydro with energy storage, efficiency investments, and new nuclear, including SMRs, to meet rising demand and net-zero goals while addressing supply planning across the province.
Key Points
Ontario's clean energy plan adds renewables, storage, efficiency, and nuclear to meet rising electricity demand.
✅ Over $1B for energy-efficiency programs through 2030+
✅ Largest clean power procurement in Canadian history
✅ Mix of solar, wind, hydro, storage, nuclear, and SMRs
Energy Minister Todd Smith has announced a new plan that outlines the actions the government is taking to address the province's growing demand for electricity.
The government is investing over a billion dollars in "energy-efficiency programs" through 2030 and beyond, Smith said in Windsor.
Experts at Ontario's Independent Electricity System recommended the planning start early to meet demand they predict will require the province to be able to generate 88,000 megawatts (MW) in 20 years.
"That means all of our current supply ... would need to double to meet the anticipated demand by 2050," he said during the announcement.
"While we may not need to start building today, government and those in the energy sector need to start planning immediately, so we have new clean, zero emissions projects ready to go when we need them."
The project is called Powering Ontario's Growth and will advance new clean energy generation from a number of sources, including solar, hydroelectric and wind.
Smith made the announcement at Hydro One's Keith Transmission Station.
He said the new planned procurement of green power will pair well with recent energy storage procurements, so that power generated by solar panels, for example, can be stored and injected into the system when needed.
NDP Opposition Leader Marit Stiles said Monday's announcement lacks specifics.
"It's light on details, including key questions of cost, climate impact, waste management and financial risk," said Stiles.
"Ford's Conservatives should be playing catch-up after undermining clean energy in their first term. Instead, they're offering generalities and a vague sense of what they might do."
The Green Party criticized the move Monday afternoon, noting that clean, affordable electricity remains a key Ontario election issue today.
"Ontario is facing an energy crunch – and the Ford government is making it worse by choosing more expensive, dirtier options," said MPP for Guelph Mike Schreiner in the statement.
He said Premier Doug Ford has "grossly" mismanaged the province's energy supply by cancelling 750 renewable energy projects and slashing efficiency programs.
"Now, faced with an opportunity to become a leader in a world that's rapidly embracing renewable energy, this government has chosen to funnel taxpayer dollars into polluting fossil gas plants and expensive new nuclear that will take decades to come online," said Schreiner.
Smith announced last week the plan for three more small modular reactors at the site of the Darlington nuclear power plant. The province also shared its intention to add a third nuclear generating station to Bruce Power near Kincardine.
"With this backwards approach, the Ford government is squandering a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make Ontario a global leader in attracting investment dollars and creating better jobs in the trillion-dollar clean energy sector," said Schreiner.
Ontario Darlington SMR Expansion advances four GE Hitachi BWRX-300 reactors with OPG, adding 1,200 MW of baseload nuclear power to support electrification, grid reliability, and clean energy growth across Ontario and Saskatchewan.
Key Points
Plan to build four BWRX-300 SMRs at Darlington, delivering 1,200 MW of clean, reliable baseload power under OPG.
✅ Four GE Hitachi BWRX-300 units, 1,200 MW total
✅ Shared infrastructure cuts costs and timelines
✅ Supports electrification, grid reliability, net zero
The day after Ontario announced it would be building an additional 4,800 megawatts of nuclear reactors at Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, the province announced it would be dramatically expanding its planned rollout of small modular reactors at its Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, and confirmed plans to refurbish Pickering B as part of its broader strategy.
Ontario Power Generation OPG was always going to be the first to build the GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 small modular reactor SMR, with the U.S.’s Tennessee Valley Authority among others like SaskPower and several European nations following suit. But the OPG was originally going to build just one. On July 7, OPG and the Province of Ontario announced they would be bumping that up to four units of the BWRX-300.
The Ontario government is working with Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to commence planning and licensing for three additional small modular reactors (SMRs), for a total of four SMRs at the Darlington nuclear site. Once deployed, these four units would produce a total 1,200 megawatts (MW) of electricity, equivalent to powering 1.2 million homes, helping to meet increasing demand from electrification and fuel the province’s strong economic growth, the Ontario Ministry of Energy said in a release.
“Our government’s open for business approach has led to unprecedented investments across the province — from electric vehicles and battery manufacturing to critical minerals to green steel,” said Todd Smith, Minister of Energy. “Expanding Ontario’s world-leading SMR program will ensure we have the reliable, affordable and clean electricity we need to power the next major international investment, the new homes we are building and industries as they grow and electrify.”
For the first time since 2005, Ontario’s electricity demand is rising. While the government has implemented its plan to meet rising electricity demand this decade, the experts at Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator have recommended the province advance new nuclear generation and pursue life-extension at Pickering NGS to provide reliable, baseload power to meet increasing electricity needs in the 2030s and beyond.
Subject to Ontario Government and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) regulatory approvals on construction, the additional SMRs could come online between 2034 and 2036. That is the same timeframe that SaskPower is looking at for its first, and possibly second, units.
The initial unit is expected to go online in 2028 following Ontario’s first SMR groundbreaking at Darlington.
The Darlington site, which already hosts four reactors, was originally considered for an expansion of “large nuclear,” which is why OPG was already well on its way for site approvals of additional nuclear power generation. The plan changed to one, singular, SMR. Now that has been updated to four.
The announcement has significant impact on Saskatchewan, and its plans to build four of its own SMRs. The timing would allow Ontario Power Generation to apply learnings from the construction of the first unit to deliver cost savings on subsequent units. This is also the strategy SaskPower is following – allow Ontario to build the first, then learn from that experience.
Building multiple units will also allow common infrastructure such as cooling water intake, transmission connection and control room to be utilized by all four units instead of just one, reducing costs even further, the Ministry said.
“A fleet of SMRs at the Darlington New Nuclear Site is key to meeting growing electricity demands and net zero goals,” said Ken Hartwick, OPG President and CEO. “OPG has proven its large nuclear project expertise through the on-time, on budget Darlington Refurbishment project. By taking a similar approach to building a fleet of SMRs, we will deliver cost and schedule savings, and power 1.2 million homes from this site by the mid-2030s.”
The Darlington SMR project is situated on the traditional and treaty territories of the seven Williams Treaties First Nations and is also located within the traditional territory of the Huron Wendat peoples. OPG is actively engaging and consulting with potentially impacted Indigenous communities, including exploring economic opportunities in the Darlington SMR project such as commercial participation and employment.
The Ministry noted, “Ontario’s robust nuclear supply chain is uniquely positioned to support SMR development and deployment in Ontario, Canada and globally. Building additional SMRs at Darlington would provide more opportunities for Ontario companies and broader economic benefits as suppliers of nuclear equipment, components, and services to make further investments to expand their operation to serve the growing SMR market both domestically and abroad.”
Supporting new SMR development and investing in nuclear power is part of the Ontario government’s larger plan, aligned with a Canadian interprovincial nuclear initiative that brings provinces together, to prepare for electricity demand in the 2030s and 2040s that will build on Ontario’s clean electricity advantage and ensure the province has the power to maintain it’s position as leader in job creation and a magnet for the industries of the future, the Ministry said.
In February, World Nuclear News (WNN) reported that Poland was considering up to 79 small modular reactors of the same design as OPG and SaskPower. And on June 5, it reported, “Canada’s Ontario Power Generation will provide operator services to Poland’s Orlen Synthos Green Energy under a letter of intent signed between the partners, extending their existing cooperation on the deployment of small modular reactors.”
WNN added, “The letter of intent is aimed at concluding future agreements under which OPG and its subsidiaries could provide operator services for SMR reactors to OSGE in connection with the deployment of SMRs in Poland and other European countries. The partnership would include a number of SMR-related activities including: development and deployment; operations and maintenance; operator training; commissioning; and regulatory support.”
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
