Province pays to give away power

Quebec Windstorm 2025 disrupted Montreal and surrounding regions, triggering power outages, Hydro-Québec repairs, fallen trees, infrastructure damage, and transport delays, while emergency response and community resilience accelerated restoration and recovery efforts across the province.

Key Points

A severe April 29 windstorm with 100 km/h gusts caused outages, damage, and emergency recovery across Quebec.

✅ Gusts exceeded 100 km/h across Montreal and nearby regions

✅ Hydro-Québec restored power; crews cleared debris and lines

✅ Communities shared resources, shelters, and volunteer support

A powerful windstorm swept across Quebec on April 29, 2025, leaving tens of thousands of residents without electricity and causing significant damage to infrastructure. The storm's intensity disrupted daily life, leading to widespread outages across the province, fallen trees, and transportation delays.

Storm's Impact

The windstorm, characterized by gusts exceeding 100 km/h, struck various regions of Quebec, including Montreal and its surrounding areas. Hydro-Québec reported extensive power outages affecting numerous customers. The storm's ferocity led to the uprooting of trees, downing of power lines, and significant damage to buildings and vehicles.

Response and Recovery Efforts

In the aftermath, emergency services and utility companies mobilized to restore power and clear debris. Hydro-Québec crews worked tirelessly, much like Sudbury Hydro teams did in Ontario, to repair damaged infrastructure, while municipal authorities coordinated efforts to ensure public safety and facilitate the restoration process. Despite these efforts, some areas experienced prolonged outages, highlighting the storm's severity.

Community Resilience

Residents demonstrated remarkable resilience during the crisis. Many communities came together to support one another, as seen when Toronto neighborhoods rallied during lingering outages, sharing resources and providing assistance to those in need. Local shelters were set up to offer warmth and supplies to displaced individuals, and volunteers played a crucial role in the recovery process.

Lessons Learned

The storm underscored the importance of preparedness and infrastructure resilience, including vulnerabilities highlighted by a recent manhole fire affecting Hydro-Québec customers. In response, discussions have been initiated regarding the strengthening of power grids and the implementation of more robust emergency response strategies to mitigate the impact of future natural disasters.

As Quebec continues to recover, the collective efforts of its residents and emergency services serve as a testament to the province's strength and unity, even as similar strong-wind outages affect other regions, in the face of adversity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Ontario Clean Energy Adjustment lowers hydro bills by shifting global adjustment costs, cutting time-of-use rates, and using OPG debt financing; ratepayers get inflation-capped increases for four years, then repay costs over 20 years.

Key Points

A 20-year line item repaying debt used to lower rates for 10 years by shifting global adjustment costs off hydro bills.

✅ 17% average bill cut takes effect after royal assent

✅ OPG-managed entity assumes debt for 10 years

✅ 20-year surcharge repays up to $28B plus interest

Ontarians will see lowered hydro bills for the next 10 years, but will then pay higher costs for the following 20 years, under new legislation tabled Thursday.

Ten weeks after announcing its plan to lower hydro bills, the Liberal government introduced legislation to lower time-of-use rates, take the cost of low-income and rural support programs off bills, and introduce new social programs.

It will lower time-of-use rates by removing from bills a portion of the global adjustment, a charge consumers pay for above-market rates to power producers. For the next 10 years, a new entity overseen by Ontario Power Generation will take on debt to pay that difference.

Then, the cost of paying back that debt with interest -- which the government says will be up to $28 billion -- will go back onto ratepayers' bills for the next 20 years as a "Clean Energy Adjustment."

An average 17-per-cent cut to bills will take effect 15 days after the hydro legislation receives royal assent, even as a Nov. 1 rate increase was set by the Ontario Energy Board, but there are just eight sitting days left before the Ontario legislature breaks for the summer. Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault insisted that leaves the opposition "plenty" of time for review and debate.

Premier Kathleen Wynne promised to cut hydro bills and later defended a 25% rate cut after widespread anger over rising costs helped send her approval ratings to record lows.

Electricity bills in the province have roughly doubled in the last decade, due in part to green energy initiatives, and Thibeault said the goal of this plan is to better spread out those costs.

"Like the mortgage on your house, this regime will cost more as we refinance over a longer period of time, but this is a more equitable and fair approach when we consider the lifespan of the clean energy investments, and generating stations across our province," he said.

NDP critic Peter Tabuns called it a "get-through-the-election" next June plan.

"We're going to take on a huge debt so Kathleen Wynne can look good on the hustings in the next few months and for decades we're going to pay for it," he said.

The legislation also holds rate increases to inflation for the next four years. After that, they'll rise more quickly, as illustrated by a leaked cabinet document the Progressive Conservatives unveiled Thursday.

The Liberals dismissed the document as containing outdated projections, but confirmed that it went before cabinet at some point before the government decided to go ahead with the hydro plan.

From about 2027 onward -- when consumers would start paying off the debt associated with the hydro plan -- Ontario electricity consumers will be paying about 12 per cent more than they would without the Liberal government's plan to cut costs in the short term, even though a deal with Quebec was not expected to reduce hydro bills, the government document projected.

But that was just one of many projections, said Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault.

"We have been working on this plan for months, and as we worked on it the documents and calculations evolved," he said.

The government's long-term energy plan is set to be updated this spring, and Thibeault said it will provide a more accurate look at how the hydro plan will reduce rates, even as a recovery rate could lead to higher hydro bills in certain circumstances.

Progressive Conservative critic Todd Smith said the "Clean Energy Adjustment" is nothing more than a revamped debt retirement charge, which was on bills from 2002 to 2016 to pay down debt left over from the old Ontario Hydro, the province's giant electrical utility that was split into multiple agencies in 1999 under the previous Conservative government.

"The minister can call it whatever he wants but it's right there in the graph, that there is going to be a new charge on the line," Smith said. "It's the debt retirement charge on steroids."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Quebec Large-Scale Power Connections allocate 956 MW via Hydro-Québec to battery, bioenergy, and green hydrogen projects, including Northvolt and data centers, advancing grid capacity, industrial electrification, and Quebec's energy transition.

Key Points

Allocations of 956 MW via Hydro-Québec to projects in batteries, bioenergy, and green hydrogen across Quebec.

✅ 11 projects approved, totaling 956 MW across Quebec

✅ Focus: batteries, bioenergy, green hydrogen, data centers

✅ Selection weighed grid impact, economics, environmental criteria

The Quebec government has unveiled the list of 11 companies whose projects were given the go-ahead for large-scale power connections of 5 megawatts or more, for a total of 956 MW, even as planned exports to New York continue to factor into supply.

Five of the selected projects relate to the battery sector, reflecting EV battery investments by Canada and Quebec, and two to the bioenergy sector.

TES Canada's plan to build a green hydrogen production plant in Shawinigan, announced on Friday, is on the list.

Hydro-Québec will also supply 5 MW or more to the future Northvolt battery plant at its facilities in Saint-Basile-le-Grand and McMasterville.

Other industrial projects selected are those of Air Liquide Canada, Ford-Ecopro CAM Canada S.E.C, Nouveau monde Graphite and Volta Energy Solutions Canada.

Bioenergy projects include Greenfield Global Québec, in Varennes, and WM Québec, in Sainte-Sophie.

There's also Duravit Canada's manufacturing project in Matane, Quebec Iron Ore's green steel project in Fermont, Côte-Nord, and Vantage Data Centers CanadaQC4's data center project in Pointe-Claire.

All projects were selected las August "according to defined analysis criteria, such as technical connection capacities and impact on the Quebec power grid operations, economic and regional development spinoffs, environmental and social impact, as well as consistency with government orientations," states the press release from the office of Pierre Fitzgibbon, Quebec's Economy, Innovation and Energy Minister.

"With energy balances tightening and the electrification of our economy on the rise, we need to choose the most promising projects and allocate available electricity wisely," said Fitzgibbon.

Cross-border capacity expansions, including the Maine transmission corridor now approved, are also shaping regional power flows.

"These 11 projects will accelerate the energy transition, while creating significant economic spinoffs throughout Quebec."

The government is continuing its analysis of other energy-intensive industrial projects to help make the transition to a greener economy, even as experts question Quebec's EV strategy in policy circles, until March 31.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Maritime Link HVDC Transmission connects Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to the North American grid, enabling renewable energy imports, subsea cable interconnection, Muskrat Falls hydro power delivery, and lower carbon emissions across Atlantic Canada.

Key Points

A 500 MW HVDC intertie linking Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to deliver Muskrat Falls hydro power.

✅ 500 MW capacity using twin 170 km subsea HVDC cables

✅ Interconnects Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to the North American grid

✅ Enables Muskrat Falls hydro imports, cutting CO2 and costs

For the first time, electricity has been sent between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia through the new Maritime Link.

The 500-megawatt transmission line — which connects Newfoundland to the North American energy grid for the first time and echoes projects like the New England Clean Power Link underway — was tested Friday.

"This changes not only the energy options for Newfoundland and Labrador but also for Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada," said Rick Janega, the CEO of Emera Newfoundland and Labrador, which owns the link.

"It's an historic event in our eyes, one that transforms the electricity system in our region forever."

'On time and on budget'

It will eventually carry power from the Muskrat Falls hydro project in Labrador, where construction is running two years behind schedule and $4 billion over budget, a context in which the Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota has also faced delay, to Nova Scotia consumers. It was supposed to start producing power later this year, but the new deadline is 2020 at the earliest.

The project includes two 170-kilometre subsea cables across the Cabot Strait between Cape Ray in southwestern Newfoundland and Point Aconi in Cape Breton.

The two cables, each the width of a two-litre pop bottle, can carry 250 megawatts of high voltage direct current, and rest on the ocean floor at depths up to 470 metres.

This reel of cable arrived in St. John's back in April aboard the Norwegian vessel Nexans Skagerrak, after the first power cable reached Nova Scotia earlier in the project. (Submitted by Emera NL)

The Maritime Link also includes almost 50 kilometres of overland transmission in Nova Scotia and more than 300 kilometres of overland transmission in Newfoundland, paralleling milestones on Site C transmission work in British Columbia.

The link won't go into commercial operation until January 1.

Janega said the $1.6-billion project is on time and on budget.

"We're very pleased to be in a position to be able to say that after seven years of working on this. It's quite an accomplishment," he said.

This Norwegian vessel was used to transport the 5,500 tonne subsea cable. (Submitted by Emera NL)

Once in service, the link will improve electrical interconnections between the Atlantic provinces, aligning with climate adaptation guidance for Canadian utilities.

"For Nova Scotia it will allow it to achieve its 40 per cent renewable energy target in 2020. For Newfoundland it will allow them to shut off the Holyrood generating station, in fact using the Maritime Link in advance of the balance of the project coming into service," Janega said.

Karen Hutt, president and CEO of Nova Scotia Power, which is owned by Emera Inc., calls it a great day for Nova Scotia.

"When it goes into operation in January, the Maritime Link will benefit Nova Scotia Power customers by creating a more stable and secure system, helping reduce carbon emissions, and enabling NSP to purchase power from new sources," Hutt said in a statement.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News