Green energy complex to cost $7 billion

BC Utilities Commission Site C Dam Questions press BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, stability issues, cost overruns, oversight gaps, seeking transparency for ratepayers and clarity on contracts, mitigation, and the powerhouse and spillway foundations.

Key Points

Inquiry seeking explanations from BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, costs, timelines and oversight for Site C.

✅ Timeline of studies, monitoring, and mitigation actions

✅ Rationale for contracts, costs, and right bank construction

✅ Implications for ratepayers, oversight, and project stability

The watchdog B.C. Utilities Commission has sent BC Hydro 70 questions about the troubled Site C dam, asking when geotechnical risks were first identified and when the project’s assurance board was first made aware of potential issues related to the dam’s stability. 

“I think they’ve come to the conclusion — but they don’t say it — that there’s been a cover-up by BC Hydro and by the government of British Columbia,” former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen told The Narwhal. 

On Oct. 21, The Narwhal reported that two top B.C. civil servants, including the senior bureaucrat who prepares Site C dam documents for cabinet, knew in May 2019 that the project faced serious geotechnical problems due to its “weak foundation” and the stability of the dam was “a significant risk.” 

Get The Narwhal in your inbox!
People always tell us they love our newsletter. Find out yourself with a weekly dose of our ad‑free, independent journalism

“They [the civil servants] would have reported to their ministers and to the government in general,” said Eliesen, who is among 18 prominent Canadians calling for a halt to Site C work until an independent team of experts can determine if the geotechnical problems can be resolved and at what cost.  

“It’s disingenuous for Premier [John] Horgan to try to suggest, ‘Well, I just found out about it recently.’ If that’s the case, he should fire the public servants who are representing the province.” 

The public only found out about significant issues with the Site C dam at the end of July, when BC Hydro released overdue reports saying the project faces unknown cost overruns, schedule delays and, even as it achieved a transmission line milestone earlier, such profound geotechnical troubles that its overall health is classified as ‘red,’ meaning it is in serious trouble. 

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years.”

The Site C dam is the largest publicly funded infrastructure project in B.C.’s history. If completed, it will flood 128 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries, forcing families from their homes and destroying Indigenous gravesites, hundreds of protected archeological sites, some of Canada’s best farmland and habitat for more than 100 species vulnerable to extinction.

Eliesen said geotechnical risks were a key reason BC Hydro’s board of directors rejected the project in the early 1990s, when he was at the helm of BC Hydro.

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years,” said Eliesen, who is also the former Chair and CEO of Ontario Hydro, where Ontario First Nations have urged intervention on a critical electricity line, the former Chair of Manitoba Hydro and the former Chair and CEO of the Manitoba Energy Authority.

Elsewhere, a Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota has faced potential delays, highlighting broader grid planning challenges.

The B.C. Utilities Commission is an independent watchdog that makes sure ratepayers — including BC Hydro customers — receive safe and reliable energy services, as utilities adapt to climate change risks, “at fair rates.”

The commission’s questions to BC Hydro include 14 about the “foundational enhancements” BC Hydro now says are necessary to shore up the Site C dam, powerhouse and spillways. 

The commission is asking BC Hydro to provide a timeline and overview of all geotechnical engineering studies and monitoring activities for the powerhouse, spillway and dam core areas, and to explain what specific risk management and mitigation practices were put into effect once risks were identified.

The commission also wants to know why construction activities continued on the right bank of the Peace River, where the powerhouse would be located, “after geotechnical risks materialized.” 

It’s asking if geotechnical risks played a role in BC Hydro’s decision in March “to suspend or not resume work” on any components of the generating station and spillways.

The commission also wants BC Hydro to provide an itemized breakdown of a $690 million increase in the main civil works contract — held by Spain’s Acciona S.A. and the South Korean multinational conglomerate Samsung C&T Corp. — and to explain the rationale for awarding a no-bid contract to an unnamed First Nation and if other parties were made aware of that contract. 

Peace River Jewels of the Peace Site C The Narwhal
Islands in the Peace River, known as the ‘jewels of the Peace’ will be destroyed for fill for the Site C dam or will be submerged underwater by the dam’s reservoir, a loss that opponents are sharing with northerners in community discussions. Photo: Byron Dueck

B.C. Utilities Commission chair and CEO David Morton said it’s not the first time the commission has requested additional information after receiving BC Hydro’s quarterly progress reports on the Site C dam. 

“Our staff reads them to make sure they understand them and if there’s anything in then that’s not clear we go then we do go through this, we call it the IR — information request — process,” Morton said in an interview.

“There are things reported in here that we felt required a little more clarity, and we needed a little more understanding of them, so that’s why we asked the questions.”

The questions were sent to BC Hydro on Oct. 23, the day before the provincial election, but Morton said the commission is extraordinarily busy this year and that’s just a coincidence. 

“Our resources are fairly strained. It would have been nice if it could have been done faster, it would be nice if everything could be done faster.” 

“These questions are not politically motivated,” Morton said. “They’re not political questions. There’s no reason not to issue them when they’re ready.”

The commission has asked BC Hydro to respond by Nov. 19.

Read more: Top B.C. government officials knew Site C dam was in serious trouble over a year ago: FOI docs

Morton said the independent commission’s jurisdiction is limited because the B.C. government removed it from oversight of the project. 

The commission, which would normally determine if a large dam like the Site C project is in the public’s financial interest, first examined BC Hydro’s proposal to build the dam in the early 1980s.

After almost two years of hearings, including testimony under oath, the commission concluded B.C. did not need the electricity. It found the Site C dam would have negative social and environmental impacts and said geothermal power should be investigated to meet future energy needs. 

The project was revived in 2010 by the BC Liberal government, which touted energy from the Site C dam as a potential source of electricity for California and a way to supply B.C.’s future LNG industry with cheap power.

Not willing to countenance another rejection from the utilities commission, the government changed the law, stripping the commission of oversight for the project. The NDP government, which came to power in 2017, chose not to restore that oversight.

“The approval of the project was exempt from our oversight,” Morton said. “We can’t come along and say ‘there’s something we don’t like about what you’re doing, we’re going to stop construction.’ We’re not in that position and that’s not the focus of these questions.” 

But the commission still retains oversight for the cost of construction once the project is complete, Morton said. 

“The cost of construction has to be recovered in [hydro] rates. That means BC Hydro will need our approval to recover their construction cost in rates, and those are not insignificant amounts, more than $10.7 billion, in all likelihood.” 

In order to recover the cost from ratepayers, the commission needs to be satisfied BC Hydro didn’t spend more money than necessary on the project, Morton said. 

“As you can imagine, that’s not a straight forward review to do after the fact, after a 10-year construction project or whatever it ends up being … so we’re using these quarterly reports as an opportunity to try to stay on top of it and to flag any areas where we think there may be areas we need to look into in the future.”

The price tag for the Site C dam was $10.7 billion before BC Hydro’s announcement at the end of July — a leap from $6.6 billion when the project was first announced in 2010 and $8.8 billion when construction began in 2015. 

Eliesen said the utilities commission should have been asking tough questions about the Site C dam far earlier. 

“They’ve been remiss in their due diligence activities … They should have been quicker in raising questions with BC Hydro, rather than allowing BC Hydro to be exceptionally late in submitting their reports.” 

BC Hydro is late in filing another Site C quarterly report, covering the period from April 1 to June 30. 

The quarterly reports provide the B.C. public with rare glimpses of a project that international hydro expert Harvey Elwin described as being more secretive than any hydro project he has encountered in five decades working on large dams around the world, including in China.

Read more: Site C dam secrecy ‘extraordinary’, international hydro construction expert tells court proceeding

Morton said the commission could have ordered regular reporting for the Site C project if it had its previous oversight capability.

“Then we would have had the ability to follow up and ultimately order any delinquent reports to be filed. In this circumstance, they are being filed voluntarily. They can file it as late as they choose. We don’t have any jurisdiction.” 

In addition to the six dozen questions, the commission has also filed confidential questions with BC Hydro. Morton said confidential information could include things such as competitive bid information. “BC Hydro itself may be under a confidentiality agreement not to disclose it.” 

With oversight, the commission would also have been able to drill down into specific project elements,  Morton said. 

“We would have wanted to ensure that the construction followed what was approved. BC Hydro wouldn’t have the ability to make significant changes to the design and nature of the project as they went along.”

BC Hydro has been criticized for changing the design of the Site C dam to an L-shape, which Eliesen said “has never been done anywhere in the world for an earthen dam.” 

Morton said an empowered commission could have opted to hold a public hearing about the design change and engage its own technical consultants, as it did in 2017 when the new NDP government asked it to conduct a fast-tracked review of the project’s economics. 

Construction Site C Dam
A recent report by a U.S. energy economist found cancelling the Site C dam project would save BC Hydro customers an initial $116 million a year, with increasing savings growing over time. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

The commission’s final report found the dam could cost more than $12 billion, that BC Hydro had a historical pattern of overestimating energy demand and that the same amount of energy could be produced by a suite of renewables, including wind and proposed pumped storage such as the Meaford project, for $8.8 billion or less. 

The NDP government, under pressure from construction trade unions, opted to continue the project, refusing to disclose key financial information related to its decision. 

When the geotechnical problems were revealed in July, the government announced the appointment of former deputy finance minister Peter Milburn as a special Site C project advisor who will work with BC Hydro and the Site C project assurance board to examine the project and provide the government with independent advice.

Eliesen said BC Hydro and the B.C. government should never have allowed the recent diversion of the Peace River to take place given the tremendous geotechnical challenges the project faces and its unknown cost and schedule for completion. 

“It’s a disgrace and scandalous,” he said. “You can halt the river diversion, but you’ve got another four or five years left in construction of the dam. What are you going to do about all the cement you’ve poured if you’ve got stability problems?”

He said it’s counter-productive to continue with advice “from the same people who have been wrong, wrong, wrong,” without calling in independent global experts to examine the geotechnical problems. 

“If you stop construction, whether it takes three or six months, that’s the time that’s required in order to give yourself a comfort level. But continuing to do what you’ve been doing is not the right course. You should have to sit back.”

Eliesen said it reminded him of the Pete Seeger song Waist Deep in the Big Muddy, which tells the story of a captain ordering his troops to keep slogging through a river because they will soon be on dry ground. After the captain drowns, the troops turn around.

“It’s a reflection of the fact that if you don’t look at what’s new, you just keep on doing what you’ve been doing in the past and that, unfortunately, is what’s happening here in this province with this project.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

California Managed Decline of Fossil Fuels aligns oil phaseout with carbon neutrality, leveraging ZEV adoption, solar and wind growth, severance taxes, drilling setbacks, fracking oversight, CARB rules, and CalGEM regulation to deliver a just transition.

Key Points

California's strategy to phase out oil and gas while meeting carbon-neutral goals through policy, regulation, and equity.

✅ Severance taxes fund clean energy and workforce transition.

✅ Setbacks restrict drilling near schools, homes, and hospitals.

✅ CARB and CalGEM tighten fracking oversight and ZEV targets.

California’s energy past is on a collision course with its future. Think of major oil-producing U.S. states, and Texas, Alaska or North Dakota probably come to mind. Although its position relative to other states has been falling for 20 years, California remains the seventh-largest oil-producing state, with 162 million barrels of crude coming up in 2018, translating to tax revenue and jobs.

At the same time, California leads the nation in solar rooftops and electric vehicles on the road by a wide margin and ranking fifth in installed wind capacity. Clean energy is the state’s future, and the state is increasingly exporting its energy policies across the West, influencing regional markets. By law, California must have 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045, and an executive order signed by former Governor Jerry Brown calls for economywide carbon-neutrality by the same year.

So how can the state reconcile its divergent energy path? How should clean-energy-minded lawmakers wind down California’s oil and gas sector in a way that aligns with the state’s long-term climate targets while providing a just transition for the industry’s workforce?

Any efforts to reduce fossil fuel supply must run parallel to aggressive demand-reduction measures such as California’s push to have 5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2030, said Ethan Elkind, director of Berkeley Law's climate program, especially amid debates over keeping the lights on without fossil fuels in the near term. After all, if oil demand in California remains strong, crude from outside the state will simply fill the void.

“If we don’t stop using it, then that supply is going to get here, even if it’s not produced in-state,” Elkind said in an interview.

Lawmakers have a number of options for policies that would draw down and eventually phase out fossil fuel production in California, according to a new report from the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment at the UC Berkeley School of Law, co-authored by Elkind and Ted Lamm.

They could impose a higher price on California's oil production through a "severance" tax or carbon-based fee, with the revenue directed to measures that wean the state from fossil fuels. (California, alone among major oil-producing states, does not have an oil severance tax.)

Lawmakers could establish a minimum drilling setback from schools, playgrounds, homes and other sensitive sites. They could push the state's oil and gas regulator, the California Geologic Energy Management Division, to prioritize environmental and climate concerns.

A major factor holding lawmakers back is, of course, politics, including debates over blackouts and climate policy that shape public perception. Given the state’s clean-energy ambitions, it might surprise non-Californians that the oil and gas industry is one of the Golden State’s most powerful special interest groups.

Overcoming a "third-rail issue" in California politics
The Western States Petroleum Association, the sector’s trade group in California's capital of Sacramento, spent $8.8 million lobbying state policymakers in 2019, more than any other interest group. Over the last five years, the group, which cultivates both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, has spent $43.3 million on lobbying, nearly double the total of the second-largest lobbying spender.

Despite former Governor Brown’s reputation as a climate champion, critics say he was unwilling to forcefully take on the oil and gas industry. However, things may take a different turn under Brown's successor, Governor Gavin Newsom.

In May 2019, when Newsom released California's midyear budget revision (PDF), the governor's office noted the need for "careful study and planning to decrease demand and supply of fossil fuels, while managing the decline in a way that is economically responsible and sustainable.”

Related reliability concerns surfaced as blackouts revealed lapses in power supply across the state.

Writing for the advocacy organization Oil Change International, David Turnbull observed, “This may mark the first time that a sitting governor in California has recognized the need to embark upon a managed decline of fossil fuel supply in the state.”

“It is significant because typically this is one of those third-rail issues, kind of a hot potato that governors don’t even want to touch at all — including Jerry Brown, to a large extent, who really focused much more on the demand side of fuel consumption in the state,” said Berkeley Law’s Elkind.

California's revised budget included $1.5 million for a Transition to a Carbon-Neutral Economy report, which is being prepared by University of California researchers for the California Environmental Protection Agency. In an email, a CalEPA spokesperson said the report is due by the end of this year.

Winding down oil and gas production
Since the release of the revised budget last May, Newsom has taken initial steps to increase oversight of the oil and gas industry. In July 2019, he fired the state’s top oil and gas regulator for issuing too many permits to hydraulically fracture, or frack, wells.

Later in the year, he appointed new leadership to oversee oil and gas regulation in the state, and he signed a package of bills that placed constraints on fossil fuel production. The next month, Newsom halted the approval of new fracking operations until pending permits could be reviewed by a panel of scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) did not resume issuing fracking permit approvals until April of this year.

Not all steps have been in the same direction. This month Newsom dropped a proposal to add dozens of analysts, engineers and geologists at CalGEM, citing COVID-related economic pressure. The move would have increased regulatory oversight on fossil fuel producers and was opposed by the state's oil industry.

Ultimately, more durable measures to wind down fossil fuel supply and demand will require new legislation, even as regulators weigh whether the state needs more power plants to maintain reliability.

A 2019 bill by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance), AB 345, would have codified the minimum 2,500-foot setback for new oil and gas wells. However, before the final vote in the Assembly, the bill’s buffer requirement was dropped and replaced with a requirement for CalGEM “to consider a setback distance of 2,500 feet.” The bill passed the Assembly in January over "no" votes from several moderate Democrats; it now awaits action in the Senate.

A bill previously introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), AB 1745, didn’t even make it that far. Ting’s bill would have required that all new passenger cars registered in the state after January 1, 2040, be zero-emission vehicles (ZEV). The bill died in committee without a vote in April 2018.

But the backing of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), one of the world's most powerful air-quality regulators, could change the political conversation. In March, CARB chair Mary Nichols said she now supports consideration of California establishing a 100 percent zero-emission vehicle sales target by 2030, as policymakers also consider a revamp of electricity rates to clean the grid.

“In the past, I’ve been skeptical about whether that would do more harm than good in terms of the backlash by dealers and others against something that sounded so un-California like,” Nichols said during an online event. “But as time has gone on, I’ve become more convinced that we need to send the longer-term signal about where we’re headed.”

Another complicating factor for California’s political leaders is the lack of a willing federal partner — at least in the short term — in winding down oil and gas production, amid warnings about a looming electricity shortage that could pressure the grid.

Under the Trump administration, the Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 15 million acres of federal land in California, has pushed to open more than 1 million acres of public and private land across eight counties in Central California to fracking. In January 2020, California filed a federal lawsuit to block the move.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Poised to Miss 2030 Emissions Target highlights how rising greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation and natural gas power plants threaten Ontario’s climate goals, environmental sustainability, and clean energy transition efforts amid growing economic and policy challenges.

Why is Ontario Poised to Miss 2030 Emissions Target?

Ontario Poised to Miss 2030 Emissions Target examines the province’s setback in meeting climate goals due to higher power-sector emissions and shifting energy policies.

✅ Rising greenhouse gas emissions from gas-fired electricity generation

✅ Climate policy uncertainty and missed environmental targets

✅ Balancing clean energy transition with economic pressures

Ontario’s path toward meeting its 2030 greenhouse gas emissions target has taken a sharp turn for the worse, according to internal government documents obtained by Global News. The province, once on track to surpass its reduction goals, is now projected to miss them—largely due to rising emissions from electricity generation, even as the IEA net-zero electricity report highlights rising demand nationwide.

In October 2024, the Ford government’s internal analysis indicated that Ontario was on track to reduce emissions by 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, effectively exceeding its target. But a subsequent update in January 2025 revealed a grim reversal. The new forecast showed an increase of about eight megatonnes (Mt) of emissions compared to the previous model, with most of the rise attributed to the province’s energy policies.

“This forecast is about 8 Mt higher than the October 2024 forecast, mainly due to higher electricity sector emissions that reflect the latest ENERGY/IESO energy planning and assumptions,” the internal document stated.

While the analysis did not specify which policy shifts triggered the change, experts point to Ontario’s growing reliance on natural gas. The use of gas-fired power plants has surged to fill temporary gaps created by nuclear refurbishment projects and other grid constraints, even as renewable energy’s role grows. In fact, natural gas generation in early 2025 reached its highest level since 2012.

The internal report cited “changing electricity generation,” nuclear power refurbishment, and “policy uncertainty” as major risks to achieving the province’s climate goals. But the situation may be even worse than the government’s updated forecast suggests.

On Wednesday, Ontario’s auditor general warned that the January projections were overly optimistic. The watchdog’s new report concluded the province could fall even further behind its 2030 emissions target, noting that reductions had likely been overestimated in several sectors, including transportation—such as electric vehicle sales—and waste management. “An even wider margin” of missed goals was now expected, the auditor said.

Environment Minister Todd McCarthy defended the government’s position, arguing that climate goals must be balanced against economic realities. “We cannot put families’ financial, household budgets at risk by going off in a direction that’s not achievable,” McCarthy said.

The minister declined to commit to new emissions targets beyond 2030—or even to confirm that the existing goals would be met—but insisted efforts were ongoing. “We are continuing to meet our commitment to at least try to meet our commitment for the 2030 target,” he told reporters. “But targets are not outcomes. We believe in achievable outcomes, not unrealistic objectives.”

Environmental advocates warn that Ontario’s reliance on fossil-fuel generation could lock the province into higher emissions for years, undermining national efforts to decarbonize Canada’s electricity grid. With cleaning up Canada’s electricity expected to play a central role in both industrial growth and climate action, the province’s backslide represents a significant setback for Canada’s overall emissions strategy.

Other provinces face similar challenges; for example, B.C. is projected to miss its 2050 targets by a wide margin.

As Ontario weighs its next steps, the tension between energy security, affordability, and environmental responsibility continues to define the province’s path toward a lower-carbon future and Canada’s 2050 net-zero target over the long term.

Related Articles

• Canada Electricity News

Duke Energy zero-coal 2050 plan outlines a decarbonized energy mix, aligning with Paris goals, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, driven by investor pressure, shifting to natural gas, extending nuclear power, and phasing out coal.

Key Points

An investor-driven scenario to end coal by 2050, shift to natural gas, extend nuclear plants, and manage climate risk.

✅ Eliminates coal from the generation mix by 2050

✅ Prioritizes natural gas transitions without CCS breakthroughs

✅ Extends nuclear plant licenses to limit carbon emissions

One of America’s largest utility companies, Duke Energy, is set to release a report later this month that sketches a drastically changed electricity mix in a carbon-constrained future.

The big picture: Duke is the latest energy company to commit to releasing a report about climate change in response to investor pressure, echoing shifts such as Europe's oil majors going electric across the sector, conveyed by non-binding but symbolically important shareholder resolutions. Duke provides electricity to more than seven million customers in the Carolinas, the Midwest and Florida.

Gritty details: The report is expected to find that coal, currently 33% of Duke’s mix, gone entirely from its portfolio by 2050 in a future scenario where the world has taken steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and where global coal-fired electricity use is falling markedly, to a level consistent with keeping global temperatures from rising two degrees Celsius. That’s the big ambition of the 2015 Paris climate deal, but the current commitments aren’t close to reaching that.

What they're saying: “What’s difficult about this is we are trying to overlay what we understand currently about technology,” Lynn Good, Duke CEO, told Axios in an interview on the sidelines of a major energy conference here.

She went on to say that this scenario of zero coal by 2050 doesn’t assume any breakthroughs in technology that captures carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. “We don’t see that technology today, and we need to make economic decisions to get those units moving and replacing them with natural gas.”

Good also stressed the benefits of its several nuclear power plants, highlighting the role of sustaining U.S. nuclear power in decarbonization, which emit no carbon emissions. She said Duke isn’t considering investing in new nuclear plants, but plans to seek federal relicensing of current plants.

“If I turn them off, the resource that would replace them today is natural gas, so carbon will go up,” Good said. “Our objective is to continue to keep those plants as long as possible.”

What’s next: A spokesman said the other details of their 2050 scenario estimates will be available when the report is officially released by month’s end.

Axios reports that Duke Energy will release a report later this month that detail the utility's efforts to mitigate climate change risks and plan carbon-free electricity investments across its operations. The report includes a scenario that eliminates coal entirely from the company's power mix by 2050. Coal currently makes up about a third of Duke's generation.

Duke CEO Lynn Good told the news outlet the scenario ending coal-fired generation assumes no technological advances in emissions capture, seemingly leaving open the possibility.

Last year, a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded one in four of the remaining operating coal-fired plants in the U.S. are slated for closure or conversion to natural gas, amid falling power-sector carbon emissions across the country. Duke's report is expected to be released by the end of the month.

Duke's report on its carbon plans comes at the behest of shareholders, a trend utility companies have seen growing among investors who are increasingly concerned about companies' sustainability and their financial exposure to climate policy.

Last year, a majority of shareholders of Pennsylvania utility PPL Corp. called on company management to publish a report on how climate change policies and technological innovations will affect the company's bottom line. Almost 60% of shareholders voted in favor of the non-binding proposal.

The vote, reportedly a first for the power sector, followed a similar decision by shareholders of Occidental Petroleum, which was supported by about 66% of shareholders.

Duke's Good told Axios that right now the utility does not see the coal technology on the horizon that would keep it operating plants. “We don't see that technology today, and we need to make economic decisions to get those units moving and replacing them with natural gas," Good said. However, it does not mean the utility is making near-term efforts to erase coal from its power mix. However, some utilities are taking those steps as they prepare for en energy landscape with more carbon regulations.

In addition to the 25% of coal plants heading for closure or conversion, the UCS report also said that another 17% of the nation’s operating coal plants are uneconomic compared with natural gas-fired generation, and could face retirement soon. But there is plenty of ongoing research into "clean coal" possibilities, and the federal government has expressed an interest in smaller, modular coal units.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Canada Manufacturing Policy prioritizes affordable energy, trims carbon taxes, aligns with Buy America, and supports the resource sector, PPE and plastics supply, nearshoring, and resilient supply chains amid COVID-19, correcting costly green energy policies.

Key Points

A policy to boost industry with affordable energy, lower carbon taxes, resource ties, and aligned U.S. trade.

✅ Cuts energy costs and carbon tax burdens for competitiveness

✅ Rebuilds resource-sector linkages and domestic supply chains

✅ Seeks Buy America relief and clarity on plastics regulation

By Jocelyn Bamford

Since its inception in 2017, the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses has warned all levels of government that there would be catastrophic effects if policies that drove both the manufacturing and natural resources sectors out of the country were adopted.

The very origins of our coalition was in the fight for a competitive landscape in Ontario, a cornerstone of which is affordable energy and sounding the alarm that the Green Energy Policy in Ontario pushed many manufacturers out of the province.

The Green Energy Policy made electricity in Ontario four times the average North American rate. These unjust prices were largely there to subsidize the construction of expensive and inefficient wind and solar energy infrastructure, even as cleaning up Canada's grid is cited as critical to meeting climate pledges.

My company’s November hydro bill was $55,000 and $36,500 of that was the so-called global adjustment charge, the name given to these green energy costs.

Unaffordable electricity, illustrated by higher Alberta power costs in recent years, coupled with ever-more burdensome carbon taxes, have pushed Canadian manufacturing into the open arms of other countries that see the importance of affordable energy to attract business.

One can’t help but ask the question: If Canada had policies that attracted and maintained a robust manufacturing sector, would we be in the same situation with a lack of personal protective equipment and medical supplies for our front-line medical workers and our patients during this pandemic?  If our manufacturing sector wasn’t crippled by taxes and regulation, would it be more nimble and able to respond to a national emergency?

It seems that the federal government’s policies are designed to push manufacturing out, stifle our resource sector, and kill the very plastics industry that is so essential to keeping our front-line medical staff, patients, and citizens safe, even as the net-zero race accelerates federally.

As the federal government chased its obsession with a new green economy – a strange obsession given our country’s small contribution to global GHGs – including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 advocated by some leaders, it has been blinded from the real threats to our country, threats that became very, very real with COVID-19.

After the pandemic has passed, the federal government must work to make Canada manufacturing and resource friendly again, recognizing that the IEA net-zero electricity report projects the need for more power. COVID-19 proves that Canada relies on a robust resource economy and manufacturing sector to survive. We need to ensure that we are prepared for future crises like the one we are facing now.

Here are five things our government can do now to meet that end:

1. End all carbon taxes immediately.

2. Create a mandate to bring manufacturing back to Canada through competitive offerings and favourable tax regimes.

3. Recognize the interconnections between the resource sector and manufacturing, including how fossil-fuel workers support the transition across supply chains. Many manufacturers supply parts and pieces to the resource sector, and they rely on affordable energy to compete globally.

4. Stop the current federal government initiative to label plastic as toxic. At a time when the government is appealing to manufacturers to re-tool and produce needed plastic products for the health care sector, labelling plastics as toxic is counterproductive.

5. Work to secure a Canadian exemption to Buy America. This crisis has clearly shown us that dependency on China is dangerous. We must forge closer ties with America and work as a trading block in order to be more self-sufficient.

These are troubling times. Many businesses will not survive.

We need to take back our manufacturing sector.  We need to take back our resource sector.

We need to understand the interconnected nature of these two important segments of our gross domestic production, and opportunities like an Alberta–B.C. grid link to strengthen reliability.
If we do not, in the next pandemic we may find ourselves not only without ventilators, masks and gowns but also without energy to operate our hospitals.

Jocelyn Bamford is a Toronto business executive and President of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Hydro One Q2 Earnings show lower net income and EPS as mild weather curbed electricity demand; revenue missed Refinitiv estimates, while tree-trimming costs rose and the dividend remained unchanged for Ontario's grid operator.

Key Points

Hydro One Q2 earnings fell to $155M, EPS $0.26, revenue $1.41B; costs rose, demand eased, dividend held at $0.2415.

✅ Net income $155M; EPS $0.26 vs $0.34 prior year

✅ Revenue $1.41B; missed $1.44B estimate

✅ Dividend steady at $0.2415 per share

Hydro One Ltd.'s (H.TO 0.25%) second-quarter profit fell by nearly 23 per cent from last year to $155 million as the electricity utility reported spending more on tree-trimming work due to milder temperatures that also saw customers using less power, notwithstanding other periods where a one-time court ruling gain shaped quarterly results.

The Toronto-based company - which operates most of Ontario's power grid - and whose regulated rates are subject to an OEB decision, says its net earnings attributable to shareholders dropped to 26 cents per share from 34 cents per share when Hydro One had $200 million in net income.

Adjusted net income was also 26 cents per share, down from 33 cents per diluted share in the second quarter of 2018, while executive pay, including the CEO salary, drew public scrutiny during the period.

Revenue was $1.41 billion, down from $1.48 billion, while revenue net of purchased power was $760 million, down from $803 million, and across the sector, Manitoba Hydro's debt has surged as well.

Separately, Ontario introduced a subsidized hydro plan and tax breaks to support economic recovery from COVID-19, which could influence consumption patterns.

Analysts had estimated $1.44 billion of revenue and 27 cents per share of adjusted income, and some investors cite too many unknowns in evaluating the stock, according to financial markets data firm Refinitiv.

The publicly traded company, which saw a share-price drop after leadership changes and of which the Ontario government is the largest shareholder, says its quarterly dividend will remain at 24.15 cents per share for its next payment to shareholders in September.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News