France rushes to revive carbon tax

Blood Nickel spotlights ethical sourcing in the EV supply chain, linking nickel mining to human rights, environmental impact, ESG standards, and Canadian leadership in sustainable extraction, transparency, and community engagement across global battery materials markets.

Key Points

Blood Nickel is nickel mined under unethical or harmful conditions, raising ESG, human rights, and environmental risks.

✅ Links EV battery supply chains to social and environmental harm

✅ Calls for transparency, traceability, and ethical sourcing standards

✅ Highlights Canada's role in sustainable mining and community benefits

The rise of electric vehicles (EVs) has sparked a surge in demand for essential battery components, particularly nickel, and related cobalt market pressures essential for their batteries. This demand has ignited concerns about the environmental and social impacts of nickel mining, particularly in regions where standards may not meet global sustainability benchmarks. This article explores the concept of "blood nickel," its implications for the environment and communities, and Canada's potential role in promoting sustainable mining practices.

The Global Nickel Boom

As the automotive industry shifts towards electric vehicles, nickel has emerged as a critical component for lithium-ion batteries due to its ability to store energy efficiently. This surge in demand has led to a global scramble for nickel, with major producers ramping up extraction efforts to meet market needs amid EV shortages and wait times that underscore supply constraints. However, this rapid expansion has raised alarms about the environmental consequences of nickel mining, including deforestation, water pollution, and carbon emissions from energy-intensive extraction processes.

Social Impacts: The Issue of "Blood Nickel"

Beyond environmental concerns, the term "blood nickel" has emerged to describe nickel mined under conditions that exploit workers, disregard human rights, or fail to uphold ethical labor standards. In some regions, nickel mining has been linked to issues such as child labor, unsafe working conditions, and displacement of indigenous communities. This has prompted calls for greater transparency and accountability in global supply chains, with initiatives like U.S.-ally efforts to secure EV metals aiming to align sourcing standards, to ensure that the benefits of EV production do not come at the expense of vulnerable populations.

Canada's Position and Potential

Canada, home to significant nickel deposits, stands at a pivotal juncture in the global EV revolution, supported by EV assembly deals in Canada that strengthen domestic manufacturing. With its robust regulatory framework, commitment to environmental stewardship, and advanced mining technologies, Canada has the potential to lead by example in sustainable nickel mining practices. Canadian companies are already exploring innovations such as cleaner extraction methods, renewable energy integration, and community engagement initiatives to minimize the environmental footprint and enhance social benefits of nickel mining.

Challenges and Opportunities

Despite Canada's potential, the mining industry faces challenges in balancing economic growth with environmental and social responsibility and building integrated supply chains, including downstream investments like a battery plant in Niagara that can connect materials to markets. Achieving sustainable mining practices requires collaboration among governments, industry stakeholders, and local communities to establish clear guidelines, monitor compliance, and invest in responsible resource development. This approach not only mitigates environmental impacts but also fosters long-term economic stability and social well-being in mining regions.

Pathways to Sustainability

Moving forward, Canada can play a pivotal role in shaping the global nickel supply chain by promoting transparency, ethical sourcing, and environmental stewardship. This includes advocating for international standards that prioritize sustainable mining practices, supporting research and development of cleaner technologies, and leveraging adjacent resources such as Alberta lithium potential to diversify battery supply chains, while fostering partnerships with global stakeholders to ensure a fair and equitable transition to a low-carbon economy.

Conclusion

The rapid growth of electric vehicles has propelled nickel into the spotlight, highlighting both its strategic importance and the challenges associated with its extraction. As global demand for "green" metals intensifies, addressing the concept of "blood nickel" becomes increasingly urgent, even as trade measures like tariffs on Chinese EVs continue to reshape market incentives. Canada, with its rich nickel reserves and commitment to sustainability, has an opportunity to lead the charge towards ethical and responsible mining practices. By leveraging its strengths in innovation, regulation, and community engagement, Canada can help forge a path towards a more sustainable future where electric vehicles drive progress without compromising environmental integrity or social justice.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Income Graduated Fixed Charge aligns CPUC billing with utility fixed costs, lowers usage rates, supports electrification, and shifts California investor-owned utilities' electric bills by income, with CARE and Climate Credit offsets for low-income households.

Key Points

A CPUC proposal: an income-based monthly fixed fee with lower usage rates to align costs and aid low-income customers.

✅ Income-tiered fixed fees: $0-$42; CARE: $14-$22, by utility territory

✅ Usage rates drop 16%-22% to support electrification and cost-reflective billing

✅ Lowest-income save ~$10-$20; some higher earners pay ~$10+ more monthly

The Public Advocates Office (PAO) for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has proposed adding a monthly income-based fixed charge on electric utility bills based on income level.  

The rate change is designed to lower bills for the lowest-income residents while aligning billing more directly with utility costs. 

PAO’s recommendation for the Income Graduated Fixed Charge places fees between $22 and $42 per month in the three major investor-owned utilities’ territories, including an SDG&E minimum charge debate under way, for customers not enrolled in the California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) program. As seen below, CARE customers would be charged between $14 per month and $22 a month, depending on income level and territory.

For households earning $50,000 or less per year, the fixed charge would be $0, but only if the California Climate Credit is applied to offset the fixed cost.

Meanwhile, usage-based electricity rates are lowered in the PAO proposal, part of major changes to electric bills statewide. Average rates would be reduced between 16% to 22% for the three major investor-owned utilities.

The lowest-income bracket of Californians is expected to save roughly $10 to $20 a month under the proposal, while middle-income customers may see costs rise by about $20 a month, even as lawmakers seek to overturn income-based charges in Sacramento.

“We anticipate the vast majority of low-income customers ($50,000 or less per year) will have their monthly bills decrease by $10 or more, and a small proportion of the highest income earners ($100,000+ per year) will see their monthly bills rise by $10 or more,” said the PAO.

The charges are an effort to help suppress ever-increasing electricity generation and transmission rates, which are among the highest in the country, with soaring electricity prices reported across California. Rates are expected to rise sharply as wildfire mitigation efforts are implemented by the utilities found at fault for their origin.

“We are very concerned. However, we do not see the increases stopping at this point,” Linda Serizawa, deputy director for energy, PAO, told pv magazine. “We think the pace and scale of the [rate] increases is growing faster than we would have anticipated for several years now.”

Consumer advocates and regulators face calls for action on surging electricity bills across the state.

The proposed changes are also meant to more directly couple billing with the fixed charges that utilities incur, as California considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid. For example, activities like power line maintenance, energy efficiency programs, and wildfire prevention are not expected to vary with usage, so these activities would be funded through a fixed charge.

Michael Campbell of the PAO’s customer programs team, and leader of the proposed program, likened paying for grid enhancements and other social programs with utility rate increases to “paying for food stamps by taxing food.” Instead, a fixed charge would cover these costs.

PAO said the move to lower rates for usage should help encourage electrification as California moves to replace heating and cooling, appliances, and gas combustion cars with electrified counterparts. In addition, lower rates mean the cost burden of running these devices is improved.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

DOE CCUS Funding advances carbon capture, utilization, and storage with FEED studies, regional deployment, and CarbonSAFE site characterization, leveraging 45Q tax credits to scale commercial CO2 reduction across fossil energy sectors.

Key Points

DOE CCUS Funding are federal FOAs for commercial carbon capture, storage, and utilization via FEED and CarbonSAFE.

✅ $110M across FEED, Regional, and CarbonSAFE FOAs

✅ Supports Class VI permits, NEPA, and site characterization

✅ Enables 45Q credits and enhanced oil recovery utilization

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Fossil Energy (FE) has announced approximately $110 million in federal funding for cost-shared research and development (R&D) projects under three funding opportunity announcements (FOAs), alongside broader carbon-free electricity investments across the power sector.

Approximately $75M is for awards selected under two FOAs announced earlier this fiscal year; $35M is for a new FOA.

These FOAs further the Administration’s commitment to strengthening coal while protecting the environment. Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) is increasingly becoming widely accepted as a viable option for fossil-based energy sources—such as coal- or gas-fired power plants under new EPA power plant rules and other industrial sources—to lower their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

DOE’s program has successfully deployed various large-scale CCUS pilot and demonstration projects, and it is imperative to build upon these learnings to test, mature, and prove CCUS technologies at the commercial scale. A recent study by Science of the Total Environment found that DOE is the most productive organization in the world in the carbon capture and storage field.

“This Administration is committed to providing cost-effective technologies to advance CCUS around the world,” said Secretary Perry. “CCUS technologies are vital to ensuring the United States can continue to safely use our vast fossil energy resources, and we are proud to be a global leader in this field.”

“CCUS technologies have transformative potential,” said Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Steven Winberg. “Not only will these technologies allow us to utilize our fossil fuel resources in an environmentally friendly manner, but the captured CO2 can also be utilized in enhanced oil recovery and emerging CO2-to-electricity concepts, which would help us maximize our energy production.”

Under the first FOA award, Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) Studies for Carbon Capture Systems on Coal and Natural Gas Power Plants, DOE has selected nine projects to receive $55.4 million in federal funding for cost-shared R&D. The selected projects will support FEED studies for commercial-scale carbon capture systems. Find project descriptions HERE. 

Under the second FOA award, Regional Initiative to Accelerate CCUS Deployment, DOE selected four projects to receive up to $20 million in federal funding for cost-shared R&D. The projects also advance existing research and development by addressing key technical challenges; facilitating data collection, sharing, and analysis; evaluating regional infrastructure, including CO2 storage hubs and pipelines; and promoting regional technology transfer. Additionally, this new regional initiative includes newly proposed regions or advanced efforts undertaken by the previous Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSP) Initiative. Find project descriptions HERE. 

Elsewhere in North America, provincial efforts such as Quebec's and industry partners like Cascades are investing in energy efficiency projects to complement emissions-reduction goals.

Under the new FOA, Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE): Site Characterization and CO2 Capture Assessment, DOE is announcing up to $35 million in federal funding for cost-shared R&D projects that will accelerate wide-scale deployment of CCUS through assessing and verifying safe and cost-effective anthropogenic CO2 commercial-scale storage sites, and carbon capture and/or purification technologies. These types of projects have the potential to take advantage of the 45Q tax credit, bolstered by historic U.S. climate legislation, which provides a tax credit for each ton of CO2 sequestered or utilized. The credit was recently increased to $35/metric ton for enhanced oil recovery and $50/metric ton for geologic storage.

Projects selected under this new FOA shall perform the following key activities: complete a detailed site characterization of a commercial-scale CO2 storage site (50 million metric tons of captured CO2 within a 30 year period); apply and obtain an underground injection control class VI permit to construct an injection well; complete a CO2capture assessment; and perform all work required to obtain a National Environmental Policy Act determination for the site.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Ottawa Hydro Substation Heritage Designation highlights Hydro Ottawa's 1920s architecture, Art Deco facades, and municipal utility history, protecting key voltage-reduction sites in Glebe, Carling-Merivale, Holland, King Edward, and Old Ottawa South.

Key Points

A city plan to protect Hydro Ottawa's 1920s substations for architecture, utility role, and civic electrical heritage.

✅ Protects five operating voltage-reduction sites citywide

✅ Recognizes Art Deco and early 20th century utility architecture

✅ Allows emergency demolition to ensure grid safety

The city of Ottawa is looking to designate five hydro substations built nearly a century ago as heritage structures, a move intended to protect the architectural history of Ottawa's earliest forays into the electricity business, even as Ottawa electricity consumption has shifted in recent years.

All five buildings are still used by Hydro Ottawa to reduce the voltage coming from transmission lines before the electricity is transmitted to homes and businesses, and when severe weather causes outages, Sudbury Hydro crews work to reconnect service across communities.

Electricity came to Ottawa in 1882 when two carbon lamps were installed on LeBreton Flats, heritage planner Anne Fitzpatrick told the city's built heritage subcommittee on Tuesday. It became a lucrative business, and soon a privately owned monopoly that drew public scrutiny similar to debates over retroactive charges in neighboring jurisdictions.

In 1905, city council held a special meeting to buy the electrical company, which led to a dramatic drop in electricity rates for residents, a contrast with recent discussions about peak hydro rates for self-isolating customers.

The substations are now owned by Hydro Ottawa, which agreed to the heritage designations on the condition it not be prevented from emergency demolitions if it needs to address incidents such as damaging storms in Ontario while it works to "preserve public safety and the continuity of critical hydro electrical services."

Built in 1922, the substation at the intersection of Glebe and Bronson avenues was the first to be built by the new municipal electrical department, long before modern battery storage projects became commonplace on Ontario's grid.

The largest of the substations being protected dates back to 1929 and is found at the corner of Carling Avenue and Merivale Road. It was built to accommodate a growing population in areas west of downtown including Hintonburg and Mechanicsville.

The substation on Holland Avenue near the Queensway is different from the others because it was built in 1924 to serve the Ottawa Electric Railway Company. The streetcar company operated from 1891 to 1959, and urban electrical infrastructure can face failures such as the Hydro-Québec manhole fire that left thousands without power.

This substation on King Edward Avenue was built in 1931 and designed by architect William Beattie, who also designed York Street Public School in Lowertown and the substation on Carling Avenue. 

The last substation to be built in a 'bold and decorative style' is at 39 Riverdale Ave. in Old Ottawa South, according to city staff. It was designed in an Art Deco style by prominent architect J. Albert Ewart, who was also behind the Civic Hospital and nearby Southminster Church on Bank Street.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations 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

Nova Scotia Biomass Energy faces scrutiny as hydropower from Muskrat Falls via the Maritime Link increases, raising concerns over carbon emissions, biodiversity, ratepayer costs, and efficiency versus district heating in the province's renewable mix.

Key Points

Electricity from wood chips and waste wood in Nova Scotia, increasingly questioned as hydropower from the Maritime Link grows.

✅ Hydropower deliveries reduce need for biomass on the grid

✅ Biomass is inefficient, costly, and impacts biodiversity

✅ District heating offers better use of forestry residuals

The Ecology Action Centre's senior wilderness coordinator is calling on the Nova Scotia government to reduce the use of biomass to generate electricity now that more hydroelectric power is flowing into the province.

In 2020, the government of the day signed a directive for Nova Scotia Power to increase its use of biomass to generate electricity, including burning more wood chips, waste wood and other residuals from the forest industry. At the time, power from Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project in Labrador was not flowing into the province at high enough levels to reach provincial targets for electricity generated by renewable resources.

In recent months, however, the Maritime Link from Muskrat Falls has delivered Nova Scotia's full share of electricity, and, in some cases, even more, as the province also pursues Bay of Fundy tides projects to diversify supply.

Ray Plourde with the Ecology Action Centre said that should be enough to end the 2020 directive.

Ray Plourde is senior wilderness coordinator for the Ecology Action Centre. (CBC)
Biomass is "bad on a whole lot of levels," said Plourde, including its affects on biodiversity and the release of carbon into the atmosphere, he said. The province's reliance on waste wood as a source of fuel for electricity should be curbed, said Plourde.

"It's highly inefficient," he said. "It's the most expensive electricity on the power grid for ratepayers."

A spokesperson for the provincial Natural Resources and Renewables Department said that although the Maritime Link has "at times" delivered adequate electricity to Nova Scotia, "it hasn't done so consistently," a context that has led some to propose an independent planning body for long-term decisions.

"These delays and high fossil fuel prices mean that biomass remains a small but important component of our renewable energy mix," Patricia Jreiga said in an email, even as the province plans to increase wind and solar projects in the years ahead.

But to Plourde, that explanation doesn't wash.

The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board recently ruled that Nova Scotia Power could begin recouping costs of the Maritime Link project from ratepayers. As for the rising cost of fossil fuels, Ploude noted that the inefficiency of biomass means there's no deal to be had using it as a fuel source.

"Honestly, that sounds like a lot of obfuscation," he said of the government's position.

No update on district heating plans
At the time of the directive, government officials said the increased use of forestry byproducts at biomass plants in Point Tupper and Brooklyn, N.S., including the nearby Port Hawkesbury Paper mill, would provide a market for businesses struggling to replace the loss of Northern Pulp as a customer. Brooklyn Power has been offline since a windstorm damaged that plant in February, however. Repairs are expected to be complete by the end of the year or early 2023.

Ploude said a better use for waste wood products would be small-scale district heating projects, while others advocate using more electricity for heat in cold regions.

Although the former Liberal government announced six public buildings to serve as pilot sites for district heating in 2020, and a list of 100 other possible buildings that could be converted to wood heat, there have been no updates.

"Currently, we're working with several other departments to complete technical assessments for additional sites and looking at opportunities for district heating, but no decisions have been made yet," provincial spokesperson Steven Stewart said in an email.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News