Big Island geothermal celebrates 15 years

Pickering Nuclear Alert Error prompts Ontario investigation into the Alert Ready emergency alert system, Pelmorex safeguards, and public response at Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, including potassium iodide orders and geo-targeted notification issues.

Key Points

A mistaken Ontario emergency alert about the Pickering plant, now under probe for human error and system safeguards.

✅ Investigation led by Emergency Management Ontario

✅ Alert Ready and Pelmorex safeguards under review

✅ KI pill demand surged; geo-targeting questioned

A number of questions still remain a week after an emergency alert was mistakenly sent out to people across Ontario warning of an unspecified incident at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. 

The province’s solicitor general has stepped in and says an investigation into the incident should be completed fairly quickly according to the minister.

However, the nuclear scare has still left residents on edge with tens of thousands of people ordering potassium iodide, or KI, pills that protect the body from radioactive elements in the days following the incident.

Here’s what we know and still don’t know about the mistaken Pickering nuclear plant alert:

Who sent the alert?

According to the Alert Ready Emergency Alert System website, the agency works with several federal, provincial and territorial emergency management officials, Environment and Climate Change Canada and Pelmorex, a broadcasting industry and wireless service provider, to send the alerts.

Martin Belanger, the director of public alerting for Pelmorex, a company that operates the alert system, said there are a number of safeguards built in, including having two separate platforms for training and live alerts.

"The software has some steps and some features built in to minimize that risk and to make sure that users will be able to know whether or not they're sending an alert through the... training platform or whether they're accessing the live system in the case of a real emergency," he said.

Only authorized users have access to the system and the province manages that, Belanger said. Once in the live system, features make the user aware of which platform they are using, with various prompts and messages requiring the user's confirmation. There is a final step that also requires the user to confirm their intent of issuing an alert to cellphones, radio and TVs, Belanger said.

Last Sunday, a follow-up alert was sent to cellphones nearly two hours after the original notification, and during separate service disruptions such as a power outage in London residents also sought timely information.

What has the investigation revealed?

It’s still unclear as to how exactly the alert was sent in error, but Solicitor General Sylvia Jones has tapped the Chief of Emergency Management Ontario to investigate.

"It's very important for me, for the people of Ontario, to know exactly what happened on Sunday morning," Jones said.

Jones said initial observations suggest human error was responsible for the alert that was sent out during routine tests of the emergency alert.

“I want to know what happened and equally important, I want some recommendations on insurances and changes we can make to the system to make sure it doesn't happen again,” Jones said.

Jones said she expects the results of the probe to be made public.

Can you unsubscribe from emergency alerts?

It’s not possible to opt out of receiving the alerts, according to the Alert Ready Emergency Alert System website, and Ontario utilities warn about scams to help customers distinguish official notices.

“Given the importance of warning Canadians of imminent threats to the safety of life and property, the CRTC requires wireless service providers to distribute alerts on all compatible wireless devices connected to an LTE network in the target area,” the website reads.

The agency explains that unlike radio and TV broadcasting, the wireless public alerting system is geo-targeted and is specific to the a “limited area of coverage”, and examples like an Alberta grid alert have highlighted how jurisdictions tailor notices for their systems.

“As a result, if an emergency alert reaches your wireless device, you are located in an area where there is an imminent danger.”

The Pickering alert, however, was received by people from as far as Ottawa to Windsor.

Is the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station closing?

The Pickering nuclear plant has been operating since 1971, and had been scheduled to be decommissioned this year, but the former Liberal government -- and the current Progressive Conservative government -- committed to keeping it open until 2024. Decommissioning is now set to start in 2028.

It operates six CANDU reactors, and in contingency planning operators have considered locking down key staff to maintain reliability, generates 14 per cent of Ontario's electricity and is responsible for 4,500 jobs across the region, according to OPG, while utilities such as Hydro One's relief programs have supported customers during broader crises.

What should I do if I receive an emergency alert?

Alert Ready says that if you received an alert on your wireless device it’s important to take action “safely”.

“Stop what you are doing when it is safe to do so and read the emergency alert,” the agency says on their website.

“Alerting authorities will include within the emergency alert the information you need and guidance for any action you are required to take, and insights from U.S. grid pandemic response underscore how critical infrastructure plans intersect with public safety.”

“This could include but is not limited to: limit unnecessary travel, evacuate the areas, seek shelter, etc.”

The wording of last Sunday's alert caused much initial confusion, warning residents within 10 kilometres of the plant of "an incident," though there was no "abnormal" release of radioactivity and residents didn't need to take protective steps, but emergency crews were responding.

“In the event of a real emergency, the wording would be different,” Jones said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

PG&E Wildfire Lawsuit alleges utility negligence, inadequate infrastructure maintenance, and faulty transmission lines, as victims seek compensation. Regulators investigate the blaze, echoing class actions after Victoria's Black Saturday mega-fires and utility oversight failures.

Key Points

PG&E Wildfire Lawsuit alleges utility negligence and power line faults, seeking victim compensation amid investigations.

✅ Alleged failure to maintain transmission infrastructure

✅ Spark reports and regulator filings before blaze erupted

✅ Class action parallels with Australia's Black Saturday

Victims of California's most destructive wildfire have filed a lawsuit accusing Pacific Gas & Electric Co. of causing the massive blaze, a move that follows the utility's 2018 Camp Fire guilty plea in a separate case.

The suit filed on Tuesday in state court in California accuses the utility of failing to maintain its infrastructure and properly inspect and manage its power transmission lines, amid prior reports that power lines may have sparked fires in California.

The utility's president said earlier the company doesn't know what caused the fire, but is cooperating with the investigation by state agencies, and other utilities such as Southern California Edison have faced wildfire lawsuits in California.

PG&E told state regulators last week that it experienced a problem with a transmission line in the area of the fire just before the blaze erupted.

A landowner near where the blaze began said PG&E notified her the day before the wildfire that crews needed to come onto her property because some wires were sparking, and the company later promoted its wildfire assistance program for victims seeking aid.

A massive class action after Australia's last mega-fire, Victoria's Black Saturday in 2009, saw $688.5 million paid in compensation to thousands of claimants affected by the Kilmore-Kinglake and Murrindindi-Marysville fires, partly by electricity company SP Ausnet, and partly by government agencies, while in California PG&E's bankruptcy plan won support from wildfire victims addressing compensation claims.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Puerto Rico Tesla Solar Power enables resilient microgrids using batteries, renewable energy, and energy storage to rebuild the hurricane-damaged grid, reduce fossil fuels, cut costs, and accelerate recovery with scalable solar-plus-storage solutions.

Key Points

A solar-plus-storage plan using Tesla microgrids and batteries to restore Puerto Rico's cleaner, resilient power.

✅ Microgrids cut diesel reliance and harden critical facilities.

✅ Batteries stabilize the grid and shave peak demand costs.

✅ Scalable solar enables faster, modular disaster recovery.

Puerto Rico’s governor Ricardo Rossello has said that he will speak to Elon Musk after the Tesla inventor said his innovative solar and battery systems could be used to restore electricity on the island.

Mr Musk was mentioned in a tweet, referencing an article discussing ways to restore Puerto Rico’s power grid, which was knocked out by Hurricane Maria on September 20.

Restoring the ageing and already-weakened network has proved slow: as of Friday 90 per cent of the island remained without power. The island’s electricity company was declared bankrupt in July.

Mr Musk was asked: “Could @ElonMusk go in and rebuild #PuertoRico’s electricity system with independent solar & battery systems?”

The South African entrepreneur replied: “The Tesla team has done this for many smaller islands around the world, but there is no scalability limit, so it can be done for Puerto Rico too.

“Such a decision would be in the hands of the PR govt, PUC, any commercial stakeholders and, most importantly, the people of PR.”

His suggestion was seized upon by Mr Rossello, who then tweeted: “@ElonMusk Let's talk. Do you want to show the world the power and scalability of your #TeslaTechnologies?

“PR could be that flagship project.”

Mr Musk replied that he was happy to talk.

Restoring power to the battered island is a priority for the government, and improving grid resilience remains critical, with hospitals still running on generators and the 3.5 million people struggling with a lack of refrigeration or air conditioning.

Radios broadcast messages advising people how to keep their insulin cool, and doctors are concerned about people not being able to access dialysis.

And, with its power grid wiped out, the Caribbean island could totally rethink the way it meets its energy needs, drawing on examples like a resilient school microgrid built locally. 

“This is an opportunity to completely transform the way electricity is generated in Puerto Rico and the federal government should support this,” said Judith Enck, the former administrator for the region with the environmental protection agency.

“They need a clean energy renewables plan and not spending hurricane money propping up the old fossil fuel infrastructure.”

Forty-seven per cent of Puerto Rico’s power needs were met by burning oil last year - a very expensive and outdated method of electricity generation. For the US as a whole, petroleum accounted for just 0.3 per cent of all electricity generated in 2016 even as the grid isn’t yet running on 100% renewable energy nationwide.

The majority of the rest of Puerto Rico’s energy came courtesy of coal and natural gas, with renewables, which later faced pandemic-related setbacks, accounting for only two per cent of electricity generation.

“In that time of extreme petroleum prices, the utility was borrowing money and buying oil in order to keep those plants operating,” said Luis Martinez, a lawyer at natural resources defense council and former special aide to the president of Puerto Rico’s environmental quality board.

“That precipitated the bankruptcy that followed. It was in pretty poor shape before the storm. Once the storm got there, it finished the job.”

But Mr Martinez told the website Earther that it might be difficult to secure the financing for rebuilding Puerto Rico with renewables from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) funds.

“A lot of distribution lines were on wood poles,” he said.

“Concrete would make them more resistant to winds, but that would potentially not be authorized under the use of FEMA funds.

"We’re looking into if some of those requirements can be waived so rebuilding can be more resilient.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

BC Hydro Site C and Clean Energy Policy shapes B.C.'s power mix, affecting run-of-river hydro, net metering for rooftop solar, independent power producers, and surplus capacity forecasts tied to LNG Canada demand.

Key Points

BC Hydro's strategy centers on Site C, limiting new run-of-river projects and tightening net metering amid surplus power

✅ Site C adds long-term capacity with lower projected rates.

✅ Run-of-river IPP growth paused amid surplus forecasts.

✅ Net metering limits deter oversized rooftop solar.

Innergex Renewable Energy Inc. is celebrating the official commissioning today of what may be the last large run-of-river hydro project in B.C. for years to come.

The project – two new generating stations on the Upper Lillooet River and Boulder Creek in the Pemberton Valley – actually began producing power in 2017, but the official commissioning was delayed until Friday September 14.

Innergex, which earlier this year bought out Vancouver’s Alterra Power, invested $491 million in the two run-of-river hydro-electric projects, which have a generating capacity of 106 megawatts of power. The project has the generating capacity to power 39,000 homes.

The commissioning happened to coincide with an address by BC Hydro CEO Chris O’Riley to the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade Friday, in which he provided an update on the progress of the $10.7-billion Site C dam project.

That project has put an end, for the foreseeable future, of any major new run-of-river projects like the Innergex project in Pemberton.

BC Hydro expects the new dam to produce a surplus of power when it is commissioned in November 2024, so no new clean energy power calls are expected for years to come.

Independent power producers aren’t the only ones who have seen a decline in opportunities to make money in B.C. providing renewable power, as the Siwash Creek project shows. So will homeowners who over-build their own solar power systems, in an attempt to make money from power sales.

There are about 1,300 homeowners in B.C. with rooftop solar systems, and when they produce surplus power, they can sell it to BC Hydro.

BC Hydro is amending the net metering program to discourage homeowners from over-building. In some cases, some howeowners have been generating 40% to 50% more power than they need.

“We were getting installations that were massively over-sized for their load, and selling this big quantity of power to us,” O’Riley said. “And that was never the idea of the program.”

Going forward, BC Hydro plans to place limits on how much power a homeowner can sell to BC Hydro.

BC Hydro has been criticized for building Site C when the demand for power has been generally flat, and reliance on out-of-province electricity has drawn scrutiny. But O’Riley said the dam isn’t being built for today’s generation, but the next.

“We’re not building Site C for today,” he said. “We have an energy surplus for the short term. We’re not even building it for 2024. We’re building it for the next 100 years.”

O’Riley acknowledged Site C dam has been a contentious and “extremely challenging” project. It has faced numerous court challenges, a late-stage review by the BC Utilities Commission, cost overruns, geotechnical problems and a dispute with the main contractors.

In a separate case, the province was ordered to pay $10 million over the denial of a Squamish power project, highlighting broader legal risk.

But those issues have been resolved, O’Riley said, and the project is back on track with a new construction schedule.

“As we move forward, we have a responsibility to deliver a project on time and against the new revised budget, and I’m confident the changes we’ve made are set up to do that,” O’Riley said.

Currently, there are about 3,300 workers employed on the dam project.

Despite criticisms that BC Hydro is investing in a legacy mega-project at a time when cost of wind and solar have been falling, O’Riley insisted that Site C was the best and lowest cost option.

“First, it’s the lowest cost option,” he said. “We expect over the first 20 years of Site C’s operating life, our customers will see rates 7% to 10% below what it would otherwise be using the alternatives.”

BC Hydro missed a critical window to divert the Peace River, something that can only be done in September, during lower river flows. That added a full year’s delay to the project.

O’Riley said BC Hydro had built in a one-year contingency into the project, so he expects the project can still be completed by 2024 – the original in-service target date. But the delay will add more than $2 billion to the last budget estimate, boosting the estimated capital cost from $8.3 billion to $10.7 billion.

Meeting the 2024 in-service target date could be important, if Royal Dutch Shell and its consortium partners make a final investment decision this year on the $40 billion LNG Canada project.

That project also has a completion target date of 2024, and would be a major new industrial customer with a substantial power draw for operations.

“If they make a decision to go forward, they will be a very big customer of BC Hydro,” O’Riley told Business in Vancouver. “They would be in our top three or four biggest customers.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

Spring Storm Grid Risks highlight tornado outbreaks, flooding, power outages, and transmission disruptions, with NOAA flood outlooks, coal and barge delays, vulnerable nuclear sites, and distribution line damage demanding resilience, reliability, and emergency preparedness.

Key Points

Spring Storm Grid Risks show how tornadoes and floods disrupt power systems, fuel transport, and plants guide resilience.

✅ Tornado outbreaks and derechos damage distribution and transmission

✅ Flooding drives outages via treefall, substation and plant inundation

✅ Fuel logistics disrupted: rail coal, river barges, road access

The storm and tornado outbreak that recently barreled through the US Midwest, South and Mid-Atlantic was a devastating reminder of how much danger spring can deliver, despite it being the “milder” season compared to summer and winter.  

Danger season is approaching, and the country is starting to see the impacts. 

The event killed at least 32 people across seven states. The National Weather Service is still tallying up the number of confirmed tornadoes, which has already passed 100. Communities coping with tragedy are assessing the damage, which so far includes at least 72 destroyed homes in one Tennessee county alone, and dozens more homes elsewhere. 

On Saturday, April 1–the day after the storm struck–there were 1.1 million US utility customers without power, even as EIA reported a January power generation surge earlier in the year. On Monday morning, April 3, there were still more than 80,000 customers in the dark, according to PowerOutage.us. The storm system brought disruptions to both distribution grids–those networks of local power lines you generally see running overhead to buildings–as well as the larger transmission grid in the Midwest, which is far less common than distribution-level issues. 

While we don’t yet have a lot of granular details about this latest storm’s grid impacts, recent shifts in demand like New York City's pandemic power patterns show how operating conditions evolve, and it’s worth going through what else the country might be in for this spring, as well as in future springs. Moreover, there are steps policymakers can take to prepare for these spring weather phenomena and bolster the reliability and resilience of the US power system. 

Heightened flood risk 
The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said in a recent outlook that about 44 percent of the United States is at risk of floods this spring, equating to about 146 million people. This includes most of the eastern half of the country, the federal agency said. 

The agency also sees “major” flood risk potential in some parts of the Upper Mississippi River Basin, and relatively higher risk in the Sierra Nevada region, due in part to a historic snowpack in California.  

Multiple components of the power system can be affected by spring floods. 

Power lines – Floods can saturate soil and make trees more likely to uproot and fall onto power lines. This has been contributing to power outages during California’s recent heavy storms–called atmospheric rivers–that started over the winter. In other regions, soil moisture has even been used as a predictor of where power outages will occur due to hurricanes, so that utility companies are better prepared to send line repair crews to the right areas. Hurricanes are primarily a summer and fall phenomenon, and summer also brings grid stress from air conditioning demand in many states, so for now, during spring, they are less of a concern.  

Fuel transport – Spring floods can hinder the transportation of fuels like coal. While it is a heavily polluting fossil fuel that is set to continue declining as a fuel source for US electricity generation, with the EIA summer outlook for wind and solar pointing to further shifts, coal still accounted for roughly 20 percent of the country’s generation in 2022.   

About 70 percent of US coal is transported at least part of the way by trains. The rail infrastructure to transport coal from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming–the country’s primary coal source–was proven to be vulnerable to extreme floods in the spring of 2011, and even more extreme floods in the spring of 2019. The 2019 floods’ disruptions of coal shipments to power plants via rail persisted for months and into the summertime, also affecting river shipments of coal by barge. In June 2019, hundreds of barges were stalled in the Mississippi River, through which millions of tons of the fossil fuel are normally transported. 

Power plants – Power plants themselves can also be at risk of flooding, since most of them are sited near a source of water that is used to create steam to spin the plants’ turbines, and conversely, low water levels can constrain hydropower as seen in Western Canada hydropower drought during recent reservoir shortfalls. Most US fossil fuel generating capacity from sources like methane gas, which recently set natural gas power records across the grid, and coal utilizes steam to generate electricity. 

However, much of the attention paid to the flood risk of power plant sites has centered on nuclear plants, a key source of low-carbon electricity discussed in IAEA low-carbon electricity lessons that also require a water source for the creation of steam, as well as for keeping the plant cool in an emergency. To name a notable flood example here in the United States–both visually and substantively–in 2011, the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant in Nebraska was completely surrounded by water due to late-spring flooding along the Missouri River. This sparked a lot of concerns because it was just a few months after the March 2011 meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan. The public was thankfully not harmed by the Nebraska incident, but this was unfortunately not an isolated incident in terms of flood risks posed to the US nuclear power fleet. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News