PJM planning major upgrades for grid

UK EV Per-Mile Taxes are reshaping road pricing and vehicle taxation for electric cars, raising fairness concerns, climate policy questions, and funding needs for infrastructure and charging networks across the country.

Key Points

They are per-mile road charges on EVs to fund infrastructure, raising fairness, emissions, and vehicle taxation concerns.

✅ Propose tax relief or credits for EV owners

✅ Consider emission-based road user charging

✅ Invest in charging networks and road infrastructure

As the UK continues its push towards a greener future with increased adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) and surging EV interest during supply disruptions, a growing number of electric car drivers are voicing their frustration over the current tax system. The debate centers around the per-mile vehicle taxes that are being proposed and implemented, which many argue are unfairly burdensome on EV owners. This issue has sparked a broader campaign advocating for a more equitable approach to vehicle taxation, one that reflects the evolving landscape of transportation and environmental policy.

Rising Costs for Electric Car Owners

Electric vehicles have been hailed as a crucial component in the UK’s strategy to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change. Government incentives, such as grants for EV purchases and tax breaks, have been instrumental in encouraging the shift from petrol and diesel cars to cleaner alternatives, even as affordability concerns persist among many UK consumers. However, as the number of electric vehicles on the road grows, the financial dynamics of vehicle taxation are coming under scrutiny.

One of the key issues is the introduction and increase of per-mile vehicle taxes. While these taxes are designed to account for road usage and infrastructure costs, they have been met with resistance from EV drivers who argue that they are being disproportionately affected. Unlike traditional combustion engine vehicles, electric cars typically have lower running costs compared to petrol or diesel models and, in many cases, benefit from lower or zero emissions. Yet, the current tax system does not always reflect these advantages.

The Taxation Debate

The crux of the debate lies in how vehicle taxes are structured and implemented. Per-mile taxes are intended to ensure that all road users contribute fairly to the maintenance of transport infrastructure. However, the implementation of such taxes has raised concerns about fairness and affordability, particularly for those who have invested heavily in electric vehicles.

Critics argue that per-mile taxes do not adequately take into account the environmental benefits of driving an electric car, noting that the net impact depends on the electricity generation mix in each market. While EV owners are contributing to a cleaner environment by reducing emissions, they are also facing higher taxes that could undermine the financial benefits of their greener choice. This has led to calls for a reassessment of the tax system to ensure that it aligns with the UK’s climate goals and provides a fair deal for electric vehicle drivers.

Campaigns for Fairer Taxation

In response to these concerns, several advocacy groups and individual EV owners have launched campaigns calling for a more balanced approach to vehicle taxation. These campaigns emphasize the need for a system that supports the transition to electric vehicles and recognizes their role in reducing environmental impact, drawing on ambitious EV targets abroad as useful benchmarks.

Key proposals from these campaigns include:

1. Tax Relief for EV Owners: Advocates suggest providing targeted tax relief for electric vehicle owners to offset the costs of per-mile taxes. This could include subsidies or tax credits that acknowledge the environmental benefits of EVs and help to make up for higher road usage fees.

2. Emission-Based Taxation: An alternative approach is to design vehicle taxes based on emissions rather than mileage. This system would ensure that those driving high-emission vehicles contribute more to road maintenance, while EV owners, who are already reducing emissions, are not penalized.

3. Infrastructure Investments: Campaigners also call for increased investments in infrastructure that supports electric vehicles, such as charging networks and proper grid management practices that balance load. This would help to address concerns about the adequacy of current road maintenance and support the growing number of EVs on the road.

Government Response and Future Directions

The UK government faces the challenge of balancing revenue needs with environmental goals. While there is recognition of the need to update the tax system in light of increasing EV adoption, there is also a focus on ensuring that any changes are equitable and do not disincentivize the shift towards cleaner vehicles, while considering whether the UK grid can handle additional EV demand reliably.

Discussions are ongoing about how to best implement changes that address the concerns of electric vehicle owners while ensuring that the transportation infrastructure remains adequately funded. The outcome of these discussions will be critical in shaping the future of vehicle taxation in the UK and supporting the country’s broader environmental objectives.

Conclusion

As electric vehicle adoption continues to rise in the UK, the debate over vehicle taxation becomes increasingly important. The campaign for fairer per-mile taxes highlights the need for a tax system that supports the transition to cleaner transportation while also being fair to those who have made environmentally conscious choices. Balancing these factors will be key to achieving the UK’s climate goals and ensuring that all road users contribute equitably to the maintenance of transport infrastructure. The ongoing dialogue and policy adjustments will play a crucial role in shaping a sustainable and just future for transportation in the UK.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

US Climate Alliance 100% Renewables 2035 accelerates clean energy, electrification, and decarbonization, replacing coal and gas with wind, solar, and storage to cut air pollution, lower energy bills, create jobs, and advance environmental justice.

Key Points

A state-level target for alliance members to meet all electricity demand with renewable energy by 2035.

✅ 100% RES can meet rising demand from electrification

✅ Major health gains from reduced SO2, NOx, and particulates

✅ Jobs grow, energy burdens fall, climate resilience improves

The Union of Concerned Scientists joined with COPAL (Minnesota), GreenRoots (Massachusetts), and the Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition, to better understand the feasibility and implications of leadership states meeting 100 percent of their electricity needs with renewable energy by 2035, a target reflected in federal clean electricity goals under discussion today.

We focused on 24 member states of the United States Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of governors committed to the goals of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. We analyzed two main scenarios: business as usual versus 100 percent renewable electricity standards, in line with many state clean energy targets now in place.

Our analysis shows that:

Climate Alliance states can meet 100 percent of their electricity consumption with renewable energy by 2035, as independent assessments of zero-emissions feasibility suggest. This holds true even with strong increases in demand due to the electrification of transportation and heating.

A transition to renewables yields strong benefits in terms of health, climate, economies, and energy affordability.

To ensure an equitable transition, states should broaden access to clean energy technologies and decision making to include environmental justice and fossil fuel-dependent communitieswhile directly phasing out coal and gas plants.

Demands for climate action surround us. Every day brings news of devastating "this is not normal" extreme weather: record-breaking heat waves, precipitation, flooding, wildfires. To build resilience and mitigate the worst impacts of the climate crisis requires immediate action to reduce heat-trapping emissions and transition to renewable energy, including practical decarbonization strategies adopted by states.

On the Road to 100 Percent Renewables explores actions at one critical level: how leadership states can address climate change by reducing heat-trapping emissions in key sectors of the economy as well as by considering the impacts of our energy choices. A collaboration of the Union of Concerned Scientists and local environmental justice groups COPAL (Minnesota), GreenRoots (Massachusetts), and the Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition, with contributions from the national Initiative for Energy Justice, assessed the potential to accelerate the use of renewable energy dramatically through state-level renewable electricity standards (RESs), major drivers of clean energy in recent decades. In addition, the partners worked with Greenlink Analytics, an energy research organization, to assess how RESs most directly affect people's lives, such as changes in public health, jobs, and energy bills for households.

Focusing on 24 members of the United States Climate Alliance (USCA), the study assesses the implications of meeting 100 percent of electricity consumption in these states, including examples like Rhode Island's 100% by 2030 plan that inform policy design, with renewable energy in the near term. The alliance is a bipartisan coalition of governors committed to reducing heat-trapping emissions consistent with the goals of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.[1]

On the Road to 100 Percent Renewables looks at three types of results from a transition to 100 percent RES policies: improvements in public health from decreasing the use of coal and gas2 power plants; net job creation from switching to more labor-oriented clean energy; and reduced household energy bills from using cleaner sources of energy. The study assumes a strong push to electrify transportation and heating to address harmful emissions from the current use of fossil fuels in these sectors. Our core policy scenario does not focus on electricity generation itself, nor does it mandate retiring coal, gas, and nuclear power plants or assess new policies to drive renewable energy in non-USCA states.

Our analysis shows that:

USCA states can meet 100 percent of their electricity consumption with renewable energy by 2035 even with strong increases in demand due to electrifying transportation and heating.

A transition to renewables yields strong benefits in terms of health, climate, economies, and energy affordability.

Renewable electricity standards must be paired with policies that address not only electricity consumption but also electricity generation, including modern grid infrastructure upgrades that enable higher renewable shares, both to transition away from fossil fuels more quickly and to ensure an equitable transition in which all communities experience the benefits of a clean energy economy.

Currently, the states in this analysis meet their electricity needs with differing mixes of electricity sourcesfossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables. Yet across the states, the study shows significant declines in fossil fuel use from transitioning to clean electricity; the use of solar and wind powerthe dominant renewablesgrows substantially:

In the study's "No New Policy" scenario"business as usual"coal and gas generation stay largely at current levels over the next two decades. Electricity generation from wind and solar grows due to both current policies and lowest costs.

In a "100% RES" scenario, each USCA state puts in place a 100 percent renewable electricity standard. Gas generation falls, although some continues for export to non-USCA states. Coal generation essentially disappears by 2040. Wind and solar generation combined grow to seven times current levels, and three times as much as in the No New Policy scenario.

A focus on meeting in-state electricity consumption in the 100% RES scenario yields important outcomes. Reductions in electricity from coal and gas plants in the USCA states reduce power plant pollution, including emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. By 2040, this leads to 6,000 to 13,000 fewer premature deaths than in the No New Policy scenario, as well as 140,000 fewer cases of asthma exacerbation and 700,000 fewer lost workdays. The value of the additional public health benefits in the USCA states totals almost $280 billion over the two decades. In a more detailed analysis of three USCA statesMassachusetts, Michigan, and Minnesotathe 100% RES scenario leads to almost 200,000 more added jobs in building and installing new electric generation capacity than the No New Policy scenario.

The 100% RES scenario also reduces average energy burdens, the portion of household income spent on energy. Even considering household costs solely for electricity and gas, energy burdens in the 100% RES scenario are at or below those in the No New Policy scenario in each USCA state in most or all years. The average energy burden across those states declines from 3.7 percent of income in 2020 to 3.0 percent in 2040 in the 100% RES scenario, compared with 3.3 percent in 2040 in the No New Policy scenario.

Decreasing the use of fossil fuels through increasing the use of renewables and accelerating electrification reduces emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), with implications for climate, public health, and economies. Annual CO2 emissions from power plants in USCA states decrease 58 percent from 2020 to 2040 in the 100% RES scenario compared with 12 percent in the No New Policy scenario.

The study also reveals gaps to be filled beyond eliminating fossil fuel pollution from communities, such as the persistence of gas generation to sell power to neighboring states, reflecting barriers to a fully renewable grid that policy must address. Further, it stresses the importance of policies targeting just and equitable outcomes in the move to renewable energy.

Moving away from fossil fuels in communities most affected by harmful air pollution should be a top priority in comprehensive energy policies. Many communities continue to bear far too large a share of the negative impacts from decades of siting the infrastructure for the nation's fossil fuel power sector in or near marginalized neighborhoods. This pattern will likely persist if the issue is not acknowledged and addressed. State policies should mandate a priority on reducing emissions in communities overburdened by pollution and avoiding investments inconsistent with the need to remove heat-trapping emissions and air pollution at an accelerated rate. And communities must be centrally involved in decisionmaking around any policies and rules that affect them directly, including proposals to change electricity generation, both to retire fossil fuel plants and to build the renewable energy infrastructure.

Key recommendations in On the Road to 100 Percent Renewables address moving away from fossil fuels, increasing investment in renewable energy, and reducing CO2 emissions. They aim to ensure that communities most affected by a history of environmental racism and pollution share in the benefits of the transition: cleaner air, equitable access to good-paying jobs and entrepreneurship alternatives, affordable energy, and the resilience that renewable energy, electrification, energy efficiency, and energy storage can provide. While many communities can benefit from the transition, strong justice and equity policies will avoid perpetuating inequities in the electricity system. State support to historically underserved communities for investing in solar, energy efficiency, energy storage, and electrification will encourage local investment, community wealth-building, and the resilience benefits the transition to renewable energy can provide.

A national clean electricity standard and strong pollution standards should complement state action to drive swift decarbonization and pollution reduction across the United States. Even so, states are well positioned to simultaneously address climate change and decades of inequities in the power system. While it does not substitute for much-needed national and international leadership, strong state action is crucial to achieving an equitable clean energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Nordic Power Grid Dispute highlights cross-border interconnector congestion, curtailed exports and imports, hydropower priorities, winter demand spikes, rising spot prices, and transmission grid security amid decarbonization efforts across Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark.

Key Points

A clash over interconnectors and capacity cuts reshaping trade, prices, and reliability in the Nordic power market.

✅ Sweden cuts interconnector capacity to protect grid stability

✅ Norway prioritizes higher-priced exports via new cables

✅ Finland and Denmark seek EU action on capacity curtailments

A spat over electricity supplies is heating up in northern Europe. Sweden is blocking Norway from using its grids to transfer power from producers throughout the region. That’s angered Norway, which in turn has cut flows to its Nordic neighbor.

The dispute has built up around the use of cross-border power cables, which are a key part of Europe’s plans to decarbonize since they give adjacent countries access to low-carbon resources such as wind or hydropower. The electricity flows to wherever prices are higher, informed by how electricity is priced across Europe, without interference from grid operators -- but in the event of a supply squeeze, flows can be stopped.

Sweden moved to safeguard the security of its grid after Norway started increasing electricity exports through huge new cables to Germany and the U.K. Those exports at times have drawn energy away from Sweden, resulting in the country’s system operator cutting capacity at its Nordic borders, preventing exports but also hindering imports, which it relies on to handle demand spikes during winter.

“This is not a good situation in the long run,” Christian Holtz, a energy market consultant for Merlin & Metis AB.

Norway hit back last week by cutting flows to Sweden, this will prioritize better paying customers in Europe, amid Irish price spikes that highlight dispatchable shortages, giving them access to its vast hydro resources at the expense of its Nordic neighbors. 

By partially closing its borders Sweden can’t access imports either, which it relies on to handle demand spikes during the coldest days of the winter. 

In Denmark, unusual summer and autumn winds have at times delivered extraordinarily low electricity prices that ripple through regional markets.

The Swedish grid manager Svenska Kraftnat has reduced export capacity at cables across its borders by as much as half this year to keep operations secure. Finland and Denmark rely on imports too and the cuts will come at a cost for millions of homes and industries across the four nations already contending with record electricity rates this year. 

Finland and Denmark want the European Union to end the exemption to regulations that make such reductions possible in the first place, as Europe is losing nuclear power and facing tighter supply.

“Imports from our neighboring countries ensure adequacy at times of peak consumption,” said Reima Paivinen, head of operation at the Finland’s Fingrid. “The recent surge in electricity prices throughout Europe does not directly affect the adequacy of electricity, but prices may rise dramatically for short periods.”

Svenska Kraftnat says it’s not political -- it has no choice but to cut capacity until its old grids are expanded to handle the new direction of flows, a challenge mirrored by grid expansion woes in Germany that slow integration. That could take at least until 2030 to complete, it said earlier this year. At the same time, Norway halving available export capacity to about 1,200 megawatts will increase risk of shortages. 

“If we need more we will have to count on imports from other countries,” said Erik Ek, head of strategic operation at Svenska Kraftnat. “If that is not available, we will have to disconnect users the day it gets cold.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Canada Net-Zero Grid Lessons highlight Europe's energy transition risks: Germany's power prices, wind and solar variability, nuclear phaseout, grid reliability, storage, market design, policy reforms, and distributed energy resources for resilient decarbonization.

Key Points

Lessons stress an all-of-the-above mix, robust market design, storage, and nuclear to ensure reliability, affordability.

✅ Diversify: nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, storage for reliability.

✅ Reform markets and grid planning for integration and flexibility.

✅ Build fast: streamline permitting, invest in transmission and DERs.

Europe is currently suffering the consequences of an uncoordinated rush to carbon-free electricity that experts warn could hit Canada as well unless urgent action is taken.

Power prices in Germany, for example, hit a record 91 euros ($135 CAD) per megawatt-hour earlier this month. That is more than triple what electricity costs in Ontario, where greening the grid could require massive investment, even during periods of peak demand.

Experts blame the price spikes in large part on a chaotic transition to a specific set of renewable electricity sources - wind and solar - at the expense of other carbon-free supplies such as nuclear power. Germany, Europe’s largest economy, plans to close its last remaining nuclear power plant next year despite warnings that renewables are not being added to the German grid quickly enough to replace that lost supply.

As Canada prepares to transition its own electricity grid to 100 per cent net-zero supplies by 2035, with provinces like Ontario planning new wind and solar procurement, experts say the European power crisis offers lessons this country must heed in order to avoid a similar fate.

'A CAUTIONARY TALE'
“Some countries have rushed their transition without thinking about what people need and when they need it,” said Chris Bentley, managing director of Ryerson University’s Legal Innovation Zone who also served as Ontario’s Minister of Energy from 2011 to 2013, in an interview. “Germany has experienced a little bit of this issue recently when the wind wasn’t blowing.”

Wind power usually provides between 20 and 30 per cent of Germany’s electricity needs, but the below-average breeze across much of continental Europe in recent months has pushed that figure down.

“There is a cautionary tale from the experience in Europe,” said Francis Bradley, chief executive officer of the Canadian Electricity Association, in an interview. “There was also a cautionary tale from what took place this past winter in Texas,” he added, referring to widespread power failures in Texas spawned by a lack of backup power supplies during an unusually cold winter that led to many deaths.

The first lesson Canada must learn from those cautionary tales, Bradley said, “is the need to pursue an all-of-the-above approach.”

“It is absolutely essential that every opportunity and every potential technology for low-carbon or no-carbon electricity needs to be pursued and needs to be pursued to the fullest,” he said.

The more important lesson for Canada, according to Binnu Jeyakumar, is about the need for a more holistic, nuanced approach to our own net-zero transition.

“It is very easy to have runaway narratives that just pinpoint the blame on one or two issues, but the lesson here isn’t really about the reliability of renewables as there are failures that occur across all sources of electricity supply,” said Jeyakumar, director of clean energy for the Pembina Institute, in an interview. 

“The takeaway for us is that we need to get better at learning how to integrate an increasingly diverse electricity grid,” she said. “It is not necessarily the technologies themselves, it is about how we do grid planning, how are our markets structured and are we adapting them to the trends that are evolving in the electricity and energy sectors.”
 

'ABSOLUTELY ENORMOUS' CHALLENGE IS 'ALMOST MIND-BENDING'
Canada already gets the vast majority of its electricity from emission-free sources. Hydro provides roughly 60 per cent of our power, nuclear contributes another 15 per cent and renewables such as wind and solar contribute roughly seven per cent more, according to federal government data.

Tempting as it might be to view the remaining 18 per cent of Canadian electricity that is supplied by oil, natural gas and coal as a small enough proportion that it should be relatively easy to replace, with some analyses warning that scrapping coal abruptly can be costly for consumers, the reality is much more difficult.

“It is the law of diminishing returns or the 80-20 rule where the first 80 per cent is easy but the last 20 per cent is hard,” Bradley explained. “We already have an electricity sector that is 80 per cent GHG-free, so getting rid of that last 20 per cent is the really difficult part because the low-hanging fruit has already been picked.”

Key to successfully decarbonizing Canada’s power grid will be the recognition that electricity demand is constantly growing, a point reinforced by a recent power challenges report that underscores the scale. That means Canada needs to build out enough emission-free power sources to replace existing fossil fuel-based supplies while also ensuring adequate supplies for future demand.

“It is one thing to say that by 2035 we are going to have a decarbonized electricity system, but the challenge really is the amount of additional electricity that we are going to need between now and 2035,” said John Gorman, chief executive officer of the Canadian Nuclear Association, which has argued that nuclear is key to climate goals in Canada, and former CEO of the Canadian Solar Industries Association, in an interview. “It is absolutely enormous, I mean, it is almost mind-bending.”

Canada will need to triple the amount of electricity produced nationwide by 2050, according to a report from SNC-Lavalin published earlier this year, and provinces such as Ontario face a shortfall over the next few years, Gorman said. Gorman said that will require adding between five and seven gigawatts of new installed capacity to Canada’s electricity grid every year from 2021 through 2050 or more than twice the amount of new power supply Canada brings online annually right now.

For perspective, consider Ontario’s Bruce Power nuclear facility. It took 27 years to bring that plant to its current 6.4 gigawatt (GW) capacity, but meeting Canada’s decarbonization goals will require adding roughly the equivalent capacity of Bruce Power every year for the next three decades.

“The task of creating enough electricity in the coming years is truly enormous and governments have not really wrapped their heads around that yet,” Gorman said. “For those of us in the energy sector, it is the type of thing that can keep you up at night.”

GOVERNMENT POLICY 'HELD HOSTAGE' BY 'DINOSAURS'
The Pembina Institute’s Jeyakumar agreed “the last mile is often the most difficult” and will require “a concerted effort both at the federal level and the provincial level.”

Governments will “need to be able to support innovation and solutions such as non-wires alternatives,” she said. “Instead of building a massive new transmission line or beefing up an old one, you could put a storage facility at the end of an existing line. Distributed energy resources provide those kinds of non-wires alternatives and they are already cost-effective and competitive with oil and gas.”

For Glen Murray, who served as Ontario’s minister of infrastructure and transportation from early 2013 to mid-2014 before assuming the environment and climate change portfolio until his resignation in mid-2017, that is a key lesson governments have yet to learn.

“We are moving away from a centralized distribution model to distributed systems where individual buildings and homes and communities will supply their own electricity needs,” said Murray, who currently works for an urban planning software company in Winnipeg, in an interview. “Yet both the federal and provincial governments are assuming that we are going to continue to have large, centralized generation of power, but that is simply not going to be the case.”

“Government policy is not focused on driving that because they are held hostage by their own hydro utilities and the big gas companies,” Murray said. “They are controlling the agenda even though they are the dinosaurs.”

Referencing the SNC-Lavalin report, Gorman noted as many as 45 small, modular nuclear reactors as well as 20 conventional nuclear power plants will be required in the coming decades, with jurisdictions like Ontario exploring new large-scale nuclear as part of that mix: “And that is in the context of also maximizing all the other emission-free electricity sources we have available as well from wind to solar to hydro and marine renewables,” Gorman said, echoing the “all-of-the-above” mindset of the Canadian Electricity Association.

There are, however, “fundamental rules of the market and the regulatory system that make it an uneven playing field for these new technologies to compete,” said Jeyakumar, agreeing with Murray’s concerns. “These are all solvable problems but we need to work on them now.”
 

'2035 IS TOMORROW'
According to Bentley, the former Ontario energy minister-turned academic, “the government's role is to match the aspiration with the means to achieve that aspiration.”

“We have spent far more time as governments talking about the goals and the high-level promises [of a net-zero electricity grid by 2035] without spending as much time as we need to in order to recognize what a massive transformation this will mean,” Bentley said. “It is easy to talk about the end-goal, but how do you get there?”

The Canadian Electricity Assocation’s Bradley agreed “there are still a lot of outstanding questions about how we are going to turn those aspirations into actual policies. The 2035 goal is going to be very difficult to achieve in the absence of seeing exactly what the policies are that are going to move us in that direction.”

“It can take a decade to go through the processes of consultations and planning and then building and getting online,” Bradley said. “Particularly when you’re talking about big electricity projects, 2035 is tomorrow.”

Jeyakumar said “we cannot afford to wait any longer” for policies to be put in place as the decisions governments make today “will then lock us in for the next 30 or 40 years into specific technologies.”

“We need to consider it like saving for retirement,” said Gorman of the Canadian Nuclear Association. “Every year that you don’t contribute to your retirement savings just pushes your retirement one more year into the future.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

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

Great British Energy could cut UK electricity costs via public ownership, investing in clean energy like wind, solar, tidal, and nuclear, curbing windfall profits, stabilizing bills, and reinvesting returns through a state-backed generator.

Key Points

A proposed state-backed UK generator investing in clean power to cut costs and return gains to taxpayers.

✅ Publicly owned investment in wind, solar, tidal, and nuclear

✅ Cuts electricity bills by reducing generators' windfall profits

✅ Funded via bonds or asset buyouts; non-profit operations

A publicly owned electricity generation firm could save Britons nearly £21bn a year, according to new analysis that bolsters Labour’s case to launch a national energy company if the party gains power.

Thinktank Common Wealth has calculated that the cost of generating electricity to power homes and businesses could be reduced by £20.8bn or £252 per household a year under state ownership, according to a report seen by the Guardian.

The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, has committed to creating “a publicly owned national champion in clean energy” named Great British Energy.

Starmer is yet to lay out the exact structure of the mooted company, although he has said it would not involve nationalising existing assets, or become involved in the transmission grid or retail supply of energy.

Starmer instead hopes to create a state-backed entity that would invest in clean energy – wind, solar, tidal, nuclear, large-scale storage and other emerging technologies – creating jobs and ensuring windfalls from the growth in low carbon power feed back to the government.

The Common Wealth report, which analysed scenarios for reforming the electricity market, said that a huge saving on electricity costs could be made by buying out assets such as wind, solar and biomass generators on older contracts and running them on a non-profit basis. Funding the measure could require a government bond issuance, or some form of compulsory purchase process.

Last year the government attempted to get companies operating low carbon generators, including nuclear power plants, on older contracts to switch to contracts for difference (CfD), allowing any outsized profits to flow back to taxpayers. However, the government later decided to tax eligible firms through the electricity generator levy instead.

The Common Wealth study concluded that a publicly owned low carbon energy generator would best deliver on Britain’s climate and economic goals, would eliminate windfall profits made by generators and would cut household bills significantly.

MPs and campaigners have argued that Britain’s energy companies should be nationalised since the energy crisis, even as coal-free records have multiplied and renewables still need more support, which has resulted in North Sea oil and gas producers and electricity generators making windfall profits, and a string of retail suppliers collapsing, costing taxpayers billions. Detractors of nationalisation in energy argue it can stifle innovation and expose taxpayers to huge financial risks.

Common Wealth pointed out that more than 40% of the UK’s offshore wind generation capacity was publicly owned by overseas national entities, meaning the benefits of high electricity prices linked to the war in Ukraine had flowed back to other governments.

The study found the publicly owned generator model would create more savings than other options, including a drive for voluntary CfDs; splitting the generation market between low carbon and fossil fuel sources at a time when wind and solar have outproduced nuclear, and a “single buyer model” with nationalised retail suppliers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News