When Douglas Worts learned that the City of Toronto was going to fix the pavement on his street, he knew what he had to do: he called his councillor to get it stopped.
Worts has nothing against good roads. But he looks at his street – Laurier Ave. in the Parliament-Wellesley area – as more than a roadway.
He thinks it has the potential to heat and cool his house and others, by providing the footings for a geothermal heating system.
Now the city is interested in the idea, and has given $25,000 to Worts and his neighbours, through the Don Vale Cabbagetown Residents Association, to carry out a feasibility study.
Worts had never thought much about geothermal heating and cooling until he happened to hear that it was being considered for the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in Oshawa.
He talked up the idea at the Laurier street party in 2007, and some neighbours expressed interest.
He explained that down past the frost line, the Earth keeps a temperature that's warmer than winter air and cooler than summer air.
Geothermal systems take advantage of that by pumping fluid through underground pipes to carry the seasonal warmth or coolness to the surface.
Worts is keen on geothermal because the Laurier Ave. homes, built in 1888, are not energy-efficient by today's standards.
Worts thought tapping a green energy source like geothermal made a lot of sense.
One obstacle to geothermal at Laurier Ave. is geographic: There just isn't much surface area along the narrow street, where houses lack front yards or driveways.
Worts figured the roadway itself would be far more accessible for drilling rigs.
And the project would set an example of how geothermal could also have application in dense urban neighbourhoods.
"This is a perfect size street to be doing this kind of experiment," says Worts.
Staff at the energy efficiency office at city hall have been helpful, Worts said, and are willing to give residents a permit to drill on the street.
The holes will have to be very deep – about 175 metres or 575 feet, Worts says – because there's no room to run buried pipe sideways.
Each home will need its own system, because setting up a single system with common ownership proved legally complex, and not everyone on the street wants to convert to geothermal.
Worts says 16 of the 22 residents have shown serious interest.
Their councillor, Pam McConnell, supports the project.
"I think it's fabulous," she said in an interview. "It's a small street, but it could have major implications in quite a large circumference around Cabbagetown.
McConnell strongly approves of using the city street for the drill holes, because the project is in keeping with city policy on curbing carbon emissions.
"If we need to give up a little space in our right of way, that's fine with me," she said.
"I don't think it impacts the use of the street or the sidewalk. It doesn't impact the public realm, and has very important public benefits."
But money remains an obstacle – even doing a detailed feasibility study is expensive, and the Laurier Ave. residents were hobbled by lacking a formal organization.
A solution to that problem appeared one day when Sameer Dhargalkar, a Laurier resident and co-backer of the geothermal project with Worts, was walking his dog.
In Wellesley Park, he struck up a conversation with another dog owner, Lee Garrison, who heads the Don Vale Cabbagetown Residents Association.
"We just started talking out of the blue," Garrison recalls.
When the geothermal project came up, "I said: 'Let's talk some more, because I'm head of the residents' association and we've been wanting for a while to find some flagship projects to kick-start a green initiative in Cabbagetown.'"
The residents' association is now a partner in the project and provides the funding link with the city.
However, money is still an issue.
A consultant has estimated the cost of a geothermal unit at $27,000 per household.
Worts figures that with grant incentives, and with the savings from drilling many holes at once, the cost would fall to $17,000 or less.
Worts hopes the city or some other sponsor can be persuaded to loan this upfront money to owners.
He says a house spending $2,000 a year on heating and cooling might slice that to $800 with geothermal.
Hydro-Québec Bill 34 Refund issues $535M customer credits tied to electricity rates, consumption-based rebates, and variance accounts, averaging $60 per account and 2.49% of 2018-2019 usage, via bill credits or mailed cheques.
Key Points
A $535M credit refunding 2.49% of 2018-2019 usage to Hydro-Québec customers via bill credits or cheques.
✅ Applies to 2018-2019 consumption; average refund about $60.
✅ Current customers get bill credits; former customers receive cheques.
✅ Refund equals 2.49% of usage from variance accounts under prior rates.
Following the adoption of Bill 34 in December 2019, a total amount of $535 million will be refunded to customers who were Hydro-Québec account holders in 2018 or 2019. This amount was accumulated in variance accounts required under the previous rate system between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019.
If you are still a Hydro-Québec customer, a credit will be applied to your bill in the coming weeks, and improving billing layout clarity is a focus in some provinces as well. The amount will be indicated on your bill.
An average refund amount of $60. The refund amount is calculated based on the quantity of electricity that each customer consumed in 2018 and 2019. The refund will correspond to 2,49% of each customer's consumption between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019, for an average of approximately $60, while Ontario hydro rates are set to increase on Nov. 1.
The following chart provides an overview of the refund amount based on the type of home. Naturally, the number of occupants, electricity use habits and features of the home, such as insulation and energy efficiency, may have a significant impact on the amount of the refund, and in other provinces, oversight debates continue following a BC Hydro fund surplus revelation.
What if you were an account holder in 2018 or 2019 but you are no longer a Hydro-Québec customer? People who were account holders in 2018 or 2019, but who are no longer Hydro-Québec customers will receive their credit by cheque, a lump sum credit approach seen elsewhere.
To receive their cheque, these people must get in touch to update their address in one of the following ways:
If they have a Hydro-Québec Customer Space and remember their access code, they can update their profile.
Anyone without a Customer Space or who doesn't remember their access code can fill out the Request for a credit form at the following address: www.hydroquebec.com/credit in which they can indicate the address where they wish to receive their cheque, where applicable.
Those who cannot send us their address online can call 514 385-7252 or 1 888 385-7252 to give it to a customer services representative, as utilities like Hydro One have moved to reconnect customers in some cases. Note that the process will take longer on the phone, especially if the call volume is high.
UPDATE: Hydro-Québec will be returning an additional $35 million to customers under the adoption of Bill 34, amid overcharging allegations reported elsewhere.
Energy Minister Jonatan Julien announced on Tuesday that the public utility will be refunding a total of $535 million to customers between January and April.
The legislation, which was passed in December, allows the Quebec government to take control of the rates charged for electricity in the province, including decisions on whether to seek a rate hike next year under the new framework.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Ontario Hydro Rate Relief Plan delivers short-term electricity bill cuts, while leaked cabinet forecasts show inflation-linked hikes, borrowing costs, and a Clean Energy Adjustment under the province's long-term energy plan.
Key Points
A provincial plan that cuts bills now but defers costs, projecting rate hikes and adding a Clean Energy Adjustment.
✅ 25% cut now, after 8% HST relief; extra 17% reduction applied.
✅ Clean Energy Adjustment line to repay deferred system costs.
The short-term gain of a 25 per cent hydro rate cut this summer could lead to long-term pain as a leaked cabinet document forecasts prices jumping again in five years.
In the briefing materials leaked and obtained by the Progressive Conservatives, rates will start rising 6.5 per cent a year in 2022 and top out at 10.5 per cent in 2028, when average monthly bills hit $215.
That would be up from $123 this year once the rate cut — the subject of long-awaited legislation to lower electricity rates unveiled Thursday by Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault — takes full effect. There will be another 17-per-cent cut in addition to the 8 per cent taken off bills in January when the provincial portion of the HST was waived.
The leaked papers overshadowed Thibeault’s efforts to tout the price break, which will be followed with four years of hydro rate increases at 2 per cent, roughly the rate of inflation.
Thibeault charged that the Conservatives used an “outdated” document to distract from the fact that they are the only major party without a plan for dealing with skyrocketing hydro rates, with a year to go until next June’s provincial election.
“It’s not a coincidence,” he told reporters, denying any plans for an eventual 10.5-per-cent rate hike and promising the government’s new long-term energy plan, due in a few months, will have better numbers.
“We are working hard right now to continue to pull costs out of the system.”
Opposition parties said the Liberal plan doesn’t deal with the underlying problems that have made electricity expensive and simply borrows money to spread the costs over a longer period of time, with $25 billion in interest charges over 30 years.
Some observers also noted that a deal with Quebec would not reduce hydro bills, highlighting concerns about lasting affordability.
“The price of electricity is going to skyrocket after the next election,” warned Conservative MPP Todd Smith (Prince Edward—Hastings).
“The government isn’t being honest with the people of Ontario when it comes to the price of electricity.”
The documents show average monthly bills peaking at $231 in the year 2047, before falling back to $210 the following year once the 30 years of interest payments are over.
Conservative sources say they obtained the papers stamped “confidential cabinet document” from a whistleblower after Thibeault’s rate cut plan was presented to cabinet ministers at a meeting in early March.
There is no date on the document, which the energy minister alternately dismissed as “inaccurate” or possibly one of many that have been prepared with different options in mind.
“We’ve had hundreds of briefings with hundreds of documents … I can’t comment on one graph when we’ve been looking at hundreds of scenarios.”
New Democrats, who have proposed a scheme to cut rates, if elected, also called the government plan an election ploy with Liberals lagging in the polls.
“We’re going to take on a huge debt so (Premier) Kathleen Wynne can look good on the hustings in the next few months, and for decades we’re going to pay for it,” said MPP Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth).
Thibeault acknowledged the Liberal plan will start repaying borrowed money in the mid- or late 2020s and it will show up separately on hydro bills as the “Clean Energy Adjustment”, a kind of electricity recovery rate that could raise costs.
Ontario CDM Programs expand energy efficiency, demand response, and DER incentives via IESO's Save on Energy, cutting peak demand, lowering bills, and supporting electrification, retrofits, and LED lighting to meet Ontario's growing electricity needs.
Key Points
Ontario CDM Programs are IESO incentives that cut peak demand and energy use via demand response, retrofits and DERs.
✅ Delivered by IESO's Save on Energy to reduce peak demand
✅ Incentives for demand response, retrofits, LEDs, and DER solutions
✅ Help homes, businesses, and greenhouses lower bills and emissions
Ontario will be making available four new and expanded energy-efficiency programs, also known as Conservation and Demand Management (CDM) programs, to ensure a reliable, affordable, and clean electricity system, including ultra-low overnight pricing options to power the province, drive electrification and support strong economic growth. As there will be a need for additional electricity capacity in Ontario beginning in 2025, and continuing through the decade, CDM programs are among the fastest and most cost-effective ways of meeting electricity system needs.
Conservation and Demand Management
The Ontario government launched the 2021-2024 CDM Framework on January 1, 2021. The framework focuses on cost-effectively meeting the needs of Ontario’s electricity system, including by focusing on the achievement of provincial peak demand reductions and initiatives such as extended off-peak electricity rates, as well as on targeted approaches to address regional and/or local electricity system needs.
CDM programs are delivered by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which implemented staff lockdown measures during COVID-19, through the Save on Energy brand. These programs address electricity system needs and help consumers reduce their electricity consumption to lower their bills. CDM programs and incentives are available for homeowners, small businesses, large businesses, and contractors, and First Nations communities.
New and Expanded Programs
The four new and expanded CDM programs will include:
A new Residential Demand Response Program for homes with existing central air conditioning and smart thermostats to help deliver peak demand reductions. Households who meet the criteria could voluntarily enroll in this program and, alongside protections like disconnection moratoriums for residential customers, be paid an incentive in return for the IESO being able to reduce their cooling load on a select number of summer afternoons to reduce peak demand. There are an estimated 600,000 smart thermostats installed in Ontario. Targeted support for greenhouses in Southwest Ontario, including incentives to install LED lighting, non-lighting measures or behind-the-meter distributed energy resources (DER), such as combined solar generation and battery storage. Enhancements to the Save On Energy Retrofit Program for business, municipalities, institutional and industrial consumers to include custom energy-efficiency projects. Examples of potential projects could include chiller and other HVAC upgrades for a local arena, building automation and air handling systems for a hospital, or building envelope upgrades for a local business. Enhancements to the Local Initiatives Program to reduce barriers to participation and to add flexibility for incentives for DER solutions. It is the government’s intention that the new and expanded CDM programs will be available to eligible electricity customers beginning in Spring 2023.
The IESO estimates that the new program offers will deliver total provincial peak electricity demand savings of 285 megawatts (MW) and annual energy savings of 1.1 terawatt hours (TWh) by 2025, reflecting pandemic-era electricity usage shifts across Ontario. Savings will persist beyond 2025 with a total reduction in system costs by approximately $650 million over the lifetime of the measures, and will support economic recovery, as seen with electricity relief during COVID-19 measures, decarbonization and energy cost management for homes and businesses.
These enhancements will have a particular impact in Southwest Ontario, with regional peak demand savings of 225 MW, helping to alleviate electricity system constraints in the region and foster economic development, supported by stable electricity pricing for industrial and commercial companies in Ontario.
The overall savings from this CDM programming will result in an estimated three million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions reductions over the lifetime of the energy-efficiency measures to help achieve Ontario’s climate targets and protect the environment for the future.
The IESO will be updating the CDM Framework Program Plan, which provides a detailed breakdown of program budgets and energy savings and peak demand targets expected to be achieved.
Ermineskin First Nation Solar Project delivers a 1 MW distributed generation array with 3,500 panels, selling power to Alberta's grid, driving renewable energy revenue, jobs, and regional economic development with partner SkyFire Energy.
Key Points
A 1 MW, 3,500-panel distributed generation plant selling power to Alberta's grid to support revenue and jobs.
✅ Annual revenue projected at $80k-$150k, scalable
✅ Built with SkyFire Energy; expansion planned next summer
The switch will soon be flipped on a solar energy project that will generate tens of thousands of dollars for Ermineskin First Nation, while energizing economic development across Alberta, where selling renewables is emerging as a promising opportunity.
Built on six acres, the one-megawatt generator and its 3,500 solar panels will produce power to be sold into the province’s electrical grid, providing annual revenues for the band of $80,000 to $150,000, depending on energy demand and pricing.
The project cost $2.7 million, including connection costs and background studies, said Sam Minde, chief executive officer of the band-owned Neyaskweyahk Group of Companies Inc.
It was paid for with grants from the Western Economic Diversification Fund and the province’s Climate Leadership Plan, and, amid Ottawa’s green electricity contracting push, is expected to be connected to the grid by mid-December.
“It’s going to be the biggest distributed generation in Alberta,” he said.
Called the Sundancer generator, it was built and will be operated through a partnership with SkyFire Energy, reflecting how renewable power developers design better projects by combining diverse resources.
Minde said the project’s benefits extend beyond Ermineskin First Nation, one of four First Nations at Maskwacis, 20 km north of Ponoka, in a province where renewable energy surge could power thousands of jobs.
“Our nation is looking to do the best it can in business. It’s competitive, but at the same time, what is good for us is good for the region.
“If we’re creating jobs, we’re going to be building up our economy. And if you look at our region right now, we need to continue to create opportunities and jobs.”
Electricity prices are rock bottom right now, in the six to nine cents per kilowatt hour range, with recent Alberta solar contracts coming in below natural gas on cost. During the oilsands boom, when power demand was skyrocketing, the price was in the 16 to 18 cent range.
That means there is a lot of room for bigger returns for Ermineskin in the future, especially if pipelines such as TransMountain get going or the oilsands pick up again, and as Alberta solar growth accelerates in the years ahead.
The band is so confident that Sundancer will prove a success that there are plans to double it in size, a strategy echoed by community-scale efforts such as the Summerside solar project that demonstrate scalability. By next summer, a $1.5-million to $1.7-million project funded by the band will be built on another six acres nearby.
Minde said the project is an example of the community’s connection with the environment being used to create opportunities and embracing technologies that will likely figure large in the world’s energy future.
BPA Privatization would sell the Bonneville Power Administration's transmission lines, raising FERC-regulated grid rates for ratepayers, impacting hydropower and the California-Oregon Intertie under the Trump 2018 budget proposal in the Pacific Northwest region.
Key Points
Selling Bonneville's transmission grid to private owners, raising rates and returns, shifting costs to ratepayers.
✅ Trump 2018 budget targets BPA transmission assets for sale.
✅ Higher capital costs, taxes, and profit would raise transmission rates.
✅ California-Oregon Intertie and hydropower flows face price impacts.
President Trump's 2018 budget proposal is so chock-full of noxious elements — replacing food stamps with "food boxes," drastically cutting Medicaid and Medicare, for a start — that it's unsurprising that one of its most misguided pieces has slipped under the radar.
That's the proposal to privatize the government-owned Bonneville Power Administration, which owns about three-quarters of the high-voltage electric transmission lines in a region that includes California, Washington state and Oregon, serving more than 13.5 million customers. By one authoritative estimate, any such sale would drive up the cost of transmission by 26%-44%.
The $5.2-billon price cited by the Trump administration, moreover, is nearly 20% below the actual value of the Bonneville grid — meaning that a private buyer would pocket an immediate windfall of $1.2 billion, at the expense of federal taxpayers and Bonneville customers.
Trump's plan for Portland, Ore.-based Bonneville is part of a larger proposal to sell off other government-owned electricity bodies, including the Colorado-based Western Area Power Administration and the Oklahoma-based Southwestern Power Administration. But Bonneville is by far the largest of the three, accounting for nearly 90% of the total $5.8 billion the budget anticipates collecting from the sales. The proposal is also part of the administration's
Both plans are said to be politically dead-on-arrival in Washington. But they offer a window into the thinking in the Trump White House.
"The word 'muddle' comes to mind," says Robert McCullough, a respected Portland energy consultant, referring to the justification for the privatization sale included in the Trump budget.
The White House suggests that selling the Bonneville grid would result in lower costs. But that narrative, McCullough wrote in a blistering assessment of the proposal, "displays a severe lack of understanding about the process of setting transmission rates."
McCullough's assessment is an update of a similar analysis he performed when the privatization scheme was first raised by the Trump administration last year. In that analysis issued in June, McCullough said the proposal "raises the question of why these valuable assets would be sold at a discount — and who would get the benefit of the discounted price."
The implications of a sale could be dire for Californians. Bonneville is the majority owner of the California-Oregon Intertie, an electrical transmission system that carries power, including Columbia River-generated hydropower and other clean-energy generation in British Columbia that supports the regional exchange, south to California in the summer and excess California generation to the Pacific Northwest in the winter.
But the idea has drawn fire throughout the region. When it was first broached last year, the Public Power Council, an association of utilities in the Northwest, assailed it as an apparent "transfer of value from the people of the Northwest to the U.S. Treasury," drawing parallels to Manitoba Hydro governance issues elsewhere.
The region's political leaders had especially harsh words for the idea this time around. "Oregonians raised hell last year when Trump tried to raise power bills for Pacific Northwesterners by selling off Bonneville Power, and yet his administration is back at it again," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said after the idea reappeared. "Our investment shouldn't be put up for sale to free up money for runaway military spending or tax cuts for billionaires." Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) promised in a statement to work to "stop this bad idea in its tracks."
The notion of privatizing Bonneville predates the Trump administration; it was raised by Bill Clinton and again by George W. Bush, who thought the public would gain if the administration could sell its power at market rates. Both initiatives failed.
The same free-enterprise ideology underlies the Trump proposal. Privatizing the transmission lines "encourages a more efficient allocation of economic resources and mitigates unnecessary risk to taxpayers," the budget asserts. "Ownership of transmission assets is best carried out by the private sector where there are appropriate market and regulatory incentives."
But that's based on a misunderstanding of how transmission rates are set, McCullough says. Transmission is essentially a monopoly enterprise, with rates overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission based on the grid's costs, and with federal scrutiny of public utilities such as the TVA underscoring that oversight. There's very little in the way of market "incentives" involved in transmission, since no one has come forward to build a competing grid.
Those include the owners' cost of capital — which would be much higher for a private owner than a government agency, McCullough observes, as Hydro One investor uncertainty demonstrates in practice. A private owner, unlike the government-owned Bonneville, also would owe federal income taxes, which would be passed on to consumers.
Then there's the profit motive. Bonneville "currently sells and delivers its power at cost," McCullough wrote last year. "Under a private regime, an investor-owned utility would likely charge a higher rate of return, a pattern seen when UK network profits drew regulatory rebukes."
None of these considerations appears to have been factored into the White House budget proposal. "Either there's an unsophisticated person at the Office of Management and Budget thinking up these numbers himself," McCullough told me, "or there would seem to be ongoing negotiations with an unidentified third party." No such buyer has emerged in the past, however.
What's left is a blind faith in the magic of the market, compounded by ignorance about how the transmission market operates. Put it together, and there's reason to wonder if Trump is even serious about this plan.
