Business, environmental groups oppose power plant

Ontario Gas Plant Expansion aims to boost grid reliability as nuclear refurbishments proceed, using natural gas to meet electricity demand, despite critics urging renewables, energy storage, and efficiency to reduce carbon emissions, protecting investment growth.

Key Points

Ontario plan to expand gas plants for reliability during nuclear outages, sparking debate on emissions and clean options.

✅ IESO data: gas share rose from 4% (2017) to 10.4% (2022).

✅ Government cites nuclear refurbishments and demand growth.

✅ Critics propose storage, wind, solar, and efficiency.

The Ontario government is preparing to expand gas-fired power plants in Ontario; a move critics say will make the province's electricity system dirtier and could eventually leave taxpayers on the hook.

The province is currently soliciting bids for additional gas-fired electricity generation, which means new gas plants get built, or existing gas plants get expanded. 

It's poised to be Ontario's biggest increase in the gas-fired power supply in more than a decade since the previous Liberal government scrapped two gas plants, in Mississauga and Oakville, at a cost the auditor general pegged at around $1 billion. 

Doug Ford's energy minister, Todd Smith, says Ontario needs gas plants now to help meet an expected surge in demand for electricity as the province faces a supply shortfall in the coming years and to provide power while some units of the province's nuclear stations are down for refurbishment. 

"It's really important to have natural gas as an insurance policy to keep the lights on and provide the reliability that we need," Smith said in an interview. 

"We need natural gas for the short term, especially to get us through these refurbishments."

The portion of Ontario's electricity supply that comes from natural gas matters for the environment and the province's economy. Manufacturing companies increasingly seek clean power that emits as little carbon dioxide as possible. 

The portion of Ontario's electricity supply that comes from natural gas matters for the environment and the province's economy. Manufacturing companies increasingly seek a power supply that emits as little carbon dioxide as possible. 

Increasing the amount of gas-fired generation in the electricity system puts Ontario's ability to attract such investments at risk as it complicates balancing demand and emissions across the grid, says Evan Pivnick, program manager with Clean Energy Canada, a think tank. 

"Building new natural gas (power plants) in Ontario today should be seen as an absolute last resort for meeting our energy needs," said Pivnick in an interview. 

Ontario's electricity system has among the lowest rates of CO2 emissions in North America, with roughly half of the annual supply provided by nuclear power, one-quarter from hydro dams, and one-tenth from wind turbines. 

However, Ontario's gas plants have produced a growing amount of electricity in recent years, despite an early report exploring a gas halt by the minister, and that trend will continue if new gas plants are built. 

In 2017, gas- and oil-fired generation provided just four percent of Ontario's electricity supply, according to figures from the provincial agency that manages the grid, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). 

By 2022, that figure reached 10.4 percent. 

Ontario doesn't need new gas plants to meet the electricity demand, says Bryan Purcell, vice president of policy and programs at The Atmospheric Fund. This agency invests in low-carbon projects in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. 

"We're quite concerned about where Ontario's electric grid is going," said Purcell. "Thankfully, there's still time to adjust course and look at other options." 

According to Purcell and Pivnick, those options to avoid gas could include power storage (in which excess generated energy is stored for later use when electricity demand rises), wind and solar projects, or energy efficiency and conservation programs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Utility Spending Bill scrutinizes how ratepayer funds are used by utilities, targeting lobbying, advertising, wildfire prevention cost pass-throughs, and CPUC oversight to curb high electricity bills and increase accountability and transparency statewide.

Key Points

Legislation restricting utilities from using ratepayer money for lobbying and ads, with stronger CPUC oversight.

✅ Bans ratepayer-funded lobbying and political advertising

✅ Expands prohibited utility communications and influence spending

✅ Aims to curb bills, boost transparency, and CPUC accountability

California's legislators are about to vote on a bill that would impose stricter regulations on how utility companies spend the money they collect from ratepayers. This legislation directly responds to the growing discontent among Californians who are already grappling with high electricity bills, as Californians ask why electricity prices are soaring amid wildfire prevention efforts.

Consumer rights groups have been vehemently critical of how utilities have been allocating customer funds, amid growing calls for regulatory action from state officials. They allege that a substantial portion of this money is being funnelled into lobbying efforts and advertising campaigns that yield no direct benefits for the customers themselves.

The proposed bill would significantly broaden the definition of what constitutes prohibited advertising and political influence activities on the part of utility companies, separate from income-based fixed electricity charges proposals that affect rate design. This would effectively restrict the ways in which utilities can utilize customer funds for such purposes.

While consumer advocacy groups have favored the legislation, it has drawn opposition from utility companies and some labor unions, as lawmakers weigh overturning income-based utility charges in parallel debates. Opponents contend that it would hinder utilities' ability to communicate effectively with their customers and advocate for their interests. Additionally, they express concerns that the bill could result in job losses within the utility sector.

The vote on the bill is expected to take place on Monday. The outcome of the vote is uncertain, but it is sure to be a closely watched development for Californians struggling with the burden of high electricity bills, with many wondering about major changes to their electric bills in the near term.

California's Electricity Rates: A Burden for Residents

A recent report by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) revealed that the average Californian household spends a significantly higher amount on electricity compared to the national average. This disparity in electricity rates can be attributed to a number of factors, including the financial costs associated with wildfire prevention measures, investments in renewable energy infrastructure, and maintenance of aging electrical grids, even as the state considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid.

Examples of Utility Company Spending that Raise Concerns

Consumer rights groups have specifically highlighted instances where utility companies have used customer money to fund lavish executive compensation packages, sponsor professional sports teams, and finance political campaigns. They argue that these expenditures do not provide any tangible benefits to ratepayers and should not be funded through customer bills.

The Need for Accountability and Prioritization

Proponents of the bill believe that the legislation is necessary to ensure that utility companies are held accountable for how they spend customer funds. They believe that the stricter regulations would compel utilities to prioritize investments that directly improve the quality and reliability of electricity services for Californians, alongside discussions of income-based flat-fee utility bills that could reshape rate structures.

The impending vote on the bill underscores the ongoing tension between the need for reliable electricity services and the desire to keep utility rates affordable for Californians. The outcome of the vote is likely to have a significant impact on how utility companies operate in the state and how much Californians pay for their electricity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EU Electricity Price Limits are proposed by the European Commission to curb contagion from gas prices, bolster energy security, stabilize the power market, and manage inflation via LNG imports, gas storage, and reduced demand.

Key Points

Temporary power-price caps to curb gas contagion, shield consumers, and bolster EU energy security.

✅ Limits decouple electricity from volatile gas benchmarks

✅ Short-term LNG imports and storage to enhance supply security

✅ Market design reforms and demand reduction to tame prices

The European Union should consider emergency measures in the coming weeks that could include price cap strategies on electricity prices, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told leaders at an EU summit in Versailles.

The reference to the possible measures was contained in a slide deck Ms. von der Leyen used to discuss efforts to curb the EU’s reliance on Russian energy imports, which last year accounted for about 40% of its natural-gas consumption. The slides were posted to Ms. von der Leyen’s Twitter account.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has highlighted the vulnerability of Europe’s energy supplies to severe supply disruptions and raised fears that imports could be cut off by Moscow or because of damage to pipelines that run across Ukraine. It has also driven energy prices up sharply, contributing to worries about inflation and economic growth.

Earlier this week, the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, published the outline of a plan that it said could cut imports of Russian natural gas by two-thirds this year and end the need for those imports entirely before 2030, aligning with calls to ditch fossil fuels in Europe. In the short-term, the plan relies largely on storing natural gas ahead of next winter’s heating season, reducing consumption and boosting imports of liquefied natural gas from other producers.

The Commission acknowledged in its report that high energy prices are rippling through the economy, even as European gas prices have fallen back toward pre-war levels, raising manufacturing costs for energy-intensive businesses and putting pressure on low-income households. It said it would consult “as a matter of urgency” and propose options for dealing with high prices.

The slide deck used by Ms. von der Leyen on Thursday said the Commission plans by the end of March to present emergency options “to limit the contagion effect of gas prices in electricity prices, including temporary price limits, even though rolling back electricity prices can be complex under current market rules.” It also intends this month to set up a task force to prepare for next winter and a proposal for a gas storage policy.

By mid-May, the Commission will set out options to revamp the electricity market and issue a proposal for phasing out EU dependency on Russian fossil fuels by 2027, according to the slides.

French President Emmanuel Macron said Thursday that Europe needs to protect its citizens and companies from the increase in energy prices, adding that some countries, including France, have already taken some national measures.

“If this lasts, we will need to have a more long-lasting European mechanism,” he said. “We will give a mandate to the Commission so that by the end of the month we can get all the necessary legislation ready.”

The problem with price limits is that they reduce the incentive for people and businesses to consume less, said Daniel Gros, distinguished fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies, a Brussels think tank. He said low-income families and perhaps some businesses will need help dealing with high prices, but that should come as a lump-sum payment that isn’t tied to how much energy they are consuming.

“The key will be to let the price signal work,” Mr. Gros said in a paper published this week, which argued that high energy prices could result in lower demand in Europe and Asia, reducing the need for Russian natural gas. “Energy must be expensive so that people save energy,” he said.

Ms. von der Leyen’s slides suggest the EU hopes to replace 60 billion cubic meters of Russian gas with alternative suppliers, including suppliers of liquefied natural gas, by the end of this year. Another 27 billion cubic meters could be replaced through a combination of hydrogen and EU production of biomethane, according to the slide deck.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

PG&E Camp Fire Guilty Plea underscores involuntary manslaughter charges as the utility admits sparking Paradise's wildfire; Butte County prosecution, CAL FIRE findings, bankruptcy oversight, victim compensation trust, and safety reforms shape accountability.

Key Points

The legal admission by PG&E to 84 involuntary manslaughter counts and unlawfully starting the 2018 Camp Fire.

✅ 84 involuntary manslaughter counts; unlawful ignition admitted.

✅ $3,486,950 fine, $500,000 DA costs; no prison terms.

✅ $13.5B victim trust, Paradise and Butte County payments.

California utility Pacific Gas and Electric Company pleaded guilty Tuesday to 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter and one count of unlawfully starting the Camp Fire, the deadliest blaze in the state's history.

Butte County District Attorney Michael L. Ramsey said the "historic moment" should be a signal that corporations will be held responsible for "recklessly endangering" lives.
The 84 people "did not need to die," Ramsey said. He said the deaths were "of the most unimaginable horror, being burned to death."

Before sentencing, survivors will testify Wednesday about the losses of their loved ones, and many have pursued lawsuits against the utility seeking accountability.

No individuals will be sent to prison, Ramsey said.

"This is the first time that PG&E or any major utility has been charged with homicide as the result of a reckless fire. It killed a town," Ramsey said, referring to Paradise, which was annihilated by the blaze.
According to court documents filed in March, the company will be fined "no more than $3,486,950," and it must reimburse the Butte County District Attorney's Office $500,000 for the costs of its investigation into the blaze, and under separate oversight a federal judge ordered dividends to be directed to wildfire risk reduction to prioritize safety.

Among other provisions, PG&E must establish a trust, compensating victims of the 2018 Camp Fire and other wildfires to the tune of $13.5 billion as part of its bankruptcy plan, according to the plea agreement included in a regulatory filing.
It has to pay hundreds of millions to the town of Paradise and Butte County and cooperate with prosecutors' investigation, the plea deal says.
PG&E also waived its right to appeal.

"I have heard the pain and the anguish of victims as they've described the loss they continue to endure, and the wounds that can't be healed," PG&E Corporation CEO and President Bill Johnson said after the plea. "No words from me could ever reduce the magnitude of such devastation or do anything to repair the damage. But I hope that the actions we are taking here today will help bring some measure of peace, including aid through a Wildfire Assistance Program the company announced."

Johnson was in court Tuesday, where Butte County Superior Court Judge Michael Deems read the names of each victim as their photos were shown on a screen, CNN affiliate KTLA reported.
Johnson said the utility would never put profits ahead of safety again. He told the judge that PG&E took responsibility for the devastation "with eyes wide open to what happened and to what must never happen again," KTLA reported.

In March, the utility and the state agreed to bankruptcy terms, which included an overhaul of PG&E's board selection process, financial structure and oversight, with rates expected to stabilize in 2025 as reforms take hold.
According to investigators with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, PG&E was responsible for the devastating Camp Fire.

Electrical lines owned and operated by PG&E started the fire November 8, 2018, CAL Fire said in a news release, after the company acknowledged its power lines may have started two fires that day.

"The tinder dry vegetation and Red Flag conditions consisting of strong winds, low humidity and warm temperatures promoted this fire and caused extreme rates of spread," CAL Fire said.
PG&E had previously said it was "probable" that its equipment started the Camp Fire but that it wasn't conclusive whether its lines ignited a second fire, as CAL Fire alleged.
The power company filed for bankruptcy in January 2019 as it came under pressure from billions of dollars in claims tied to deadly wildfires, and other utilities such as Southern California Edison have faced similar lawsuits.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

India Nuclear Generation Shortfall highlights missed five-year plan targets due to uranium fuel scarcity, commissioning delays at Kudankulam, PFBR slippage, and PHWR equipment bottlenecks under IAEA safeguards and domestic supply constraints.

Key Points

A gap between planned and actual nuclear output due to fuel shortages, reactor delays, and first-of-a-kind hurdles.

✅ Fuel scarcity pre-2009-10 constrained unsafeguarded reactors.

✅ Kudankulam delays from protests, litigation, and remobilisation.

✅ FOAK PHWR equipment bottlenecks and PFBR slippage.

A lack of available domestically produced nuclear fuel and delays in constructing and commissioning nuclear power plants, including first-of-a-kind plants and the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR), meant that India failed to meet its nuclear generation targets under the governmental plans over the decade to 2017, even as global project milestones were being recorded elsewhere.

India's nuclear generation target under its 11th five-year plan, covering the period 2007-2012, was 163,395 million units (MUs) and the 12th five-year Plan (2012-17) was 241,748 MUs, Minister of state for the Department of Atomic Energy and the Prime Minister's Office Jitendra Singh told parliament on 6 February. Actual nuclear generation in those periods was 109,642 MUs and 183,488 MUs respectively, Singh said in a written answer to questions in the Lok Sabah.

Singh attributed the shortfall in generation to a lack of availability of the necessary quantities of domestically produced fuel during the three years before 2009-2010; delays to the commissioning of two 1000 MWe nuclear power plants at Kudankulam due to local protests and legal challenges; and delays in the completion of two indigenously designed pressurised heavy water reactors and the PFBR.

Kudankulam 1 and 2 are VVER-1000 pressurised water reactors (PWRs) supplied by Russia's Atomstroyexport under a Russian-financed contract. The units were built by Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) and were commissioned and are operated by NPCIL under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, with supervision from Russian specialists, while China's nuclear program advanced on a steady development track in the same period. Construction of the units - the first PWRs to enter operation in India - began in 2002.

Singh said local protests resulted in the halt of commissioning work at Kudankulam for nine months from September 2011 to March 2012, when he said project commissioning had been at its peak. As a consequence, additional time was needed to remobilise the workforce and contractors, he said. Litigation by anti-nuclear groups, and compliance with supreme court directives, impacted commissioning in 2013, he said. Unit 1 entered commercial operation in December 2014 and unit 2 in April 2017.

Delays in the manufacture and supply by domestic industry of critical equipment for first-of-a-kind 700 MWe pressurised heavy water reactors -  Kakrapar units 3 and 4, and Rajasthan units 7 and 8 - has led to delays in the completion of those units, the minister said, as well as noting the delay in completion of the PFBR, which is being built at Kalpakkam by Bhavini. In answer to a separate question, Singh said the PFBR is in an "advance stage of integrated commissioning" and is "expected to approach first criticality by the year 2020."

Eight of India's operating nuclear power plants are not under IAEA safeguards and can therefore only use indigenously-sourced uranium. The other 14 units operate under IAEA safeguards and can use imported uranium. The Indian government has taken several measures to secure fuel supplies for reactors in operation and under construction, amid coal supply rationing pressures elsewhere in the power sector, concluding fuel supply contracts with several countries for existing and future reactors under IAEA Safeguards and by "augmentation" of fuel supplies from domestic sources, Singh said.

Kakrapar 3 and 4, with Kakrapar 3 criticality already reported, and Rajasthan 7 and 8 are all currently expected to enter service in 2022, according to World Nuclear Association information.

Joint venture discussions

In February 2016 the government amended the Atomic Energy Act to allow NPCIL to form joint venture companies with other public sector undertakings (PSUs) for involvement in nuclear power generation and possibly other aspects of the fuel cycle, reflecting green industrial strategies shaping future reactor waves globally. In answer to another question, Singh confirmed that NPCIL has entered into joint ventures with NTPC Limited (National Thermal Power Corporation, India's largest power company) and Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Two joint venture companies - Anushakti Vidhyut Nigam Limited and NPCIL-Indian Oil Nuclear Energy Corporation Limited - have been incorporated, and discussions on possible projects to be set up by the joint venture companies are in progress.

An exploratory discussion had also been held with Oil & Natural Gas Corporation, Singh said. Indian Railways - which has in the past been identified as a potential joint venture partner for NPCIL - had "conveyed that they were not contemplating entering into an MoU for setting up of nuclear power plants," Singh said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News