A 42-year-old construction worker was killed after he was struck by a Toronto Transit Commission bus.
Two Stacey Electric workers were doing maintenance work on the underpass of a bridge at Bathurst Street and Dupont Avenue around 8 p.m. on December 23 when the bus changed lanes and struck the spotter, who was watching for traffic and standing on the roadway.
He was pronounced dead at the scene.
The bus, which had been southbound, also hit a maintenance bucket that was overhanging into the passing lane. A 51-year-old worker inside the bucket was taken to hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.
Bus passengers were not injured, and Bathurst Street at Dupont has reopened.
There is no word yet on whether charges will be laid. The driver of the bus, a 50-year-old woman, is expected to receive crisis counseling.
Toronto police Insp. Reuben Stroble said police are trying to piece together what went wrong.
"We're trying to figure that part out, as to why the maintenance workers were at the scene doing work at that particular location at this particular time," he said. "So we have investigators right now just speaking with Stacey Electric and they're co-operating with us, and also the TTC are also co-operating."
The accident is the fourth involving a TTC vehicle in a week.
U.S. Clean Energy Job Losses highlight COVID-19 impacts on renewable energy, solar, wind, and energy efficiency, with PPP fatigue, unemployment, and calls for Congressional stimulus, per Department of Labor data analyzed by E2.
Key Points
Pandemic-driven layoffs across renewable, solar, wind, and efficiency sectors, risking recovery without federal aid.
✅ Over 620,500 clean energy jobs lost in three months
✅ Energy efficiency, solar, and wind hit hardest nationwide
✅ Industry urges Congress for stimulus, tax credit relief
As Congress this week begins debating economic stimulus support for the energy industry, a new analysis of unemployment data shows the biggest part of America's energy economy - clean energy - lost another 27,000 jobs in May, bringing the total number of clean energy workers who have lost their jobs in the past three months to more than 620,500.
While May saw an improvement in new unemployment claims over March and April, the findings represent the sector's third straight month of significant job losses across solar, wind, energy efficiency, clean vehicles and other industries. With coronavirus cases once again rising in many states and companies beginning to run out of the Payroll Protection Program (PPP) funding that has helped small businesses keep workers employed, and as households confront pandemic power shut-offs that heighten energy insecurity, the report increases concerns the sector will be unable to resume its economy-leading jobs growth in the short- or long-term without a significant policy response.
Given the size and scope of the clean energy industry, such a sustained loss would cast a pall on the nation's overall economic recovery, as shifting electricity demand during COVID-19 complicates forecasts, according to the analysis of the Department of Labor's May unemployment data from E2 (Environmental Entrepreneurs), E4TheFuture and the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE).
Prior to COVID-19, clean energy - including energy efficiency, solar and wind generation, clean vehicles and related sectors - was among the U.S. economy's biggest and fastest-growing employment sectors, growing 10.4% since 2015 to nearly 3.4 million jobs at the end of 2019. That made clean energy by far the biggest employer of workers in all energy occupations, employing nearly three times as many people as the fossil fuel industry. For comparison, coal mining employs about 47,000 workers, even as clean energy projects in coal communities aim to revitalize local economies.
The latest monthly analysis for the groups by BW Research Partnership runs contrary to recent Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports, which indicated that a more robust economic rebound was underway, even as high fuel prices haven't spurred a green shift in adoption, while also acknowledging misclassifications and serious reporting difficulties in its own data.
Bob Keefe, Executive Director at E2, said:
"May's almost 30,000 clean energy jobs loss is sadly an improvement in the rate of jobs shed but make no mistake: There remains huge uncertainty and volatility ahead. It will be very tough for clean energy to make up these continuing job losses without support from Congress. Lawmakers must act now. If they do, we can get hundreds of thousands of these workers back on the job today and build a better, cleaner, more equitable economy for tomorrow. And who doesn't want that?"
Pat Stanton, Policy Director at E4TheFuture, said:
"Most of the time, energy efficiency workers need to go inside homes, businesses and other buildings to get the job done. Since they couldn't do that during COVID lockdowns, they couldn't work. Now states are opening up. But utilities, contractors and building owners need to protect employees and occupants from possible exposure to the virus and need more clarity about potential liabilities."
Gregory Wetstone, President and CEO of ACORE, said:
"In May, we saw thousands of additional renewable energy workers join the ranks of the unemployed, further underscoring the damage COVID-19 is inflicting on our workforce. Since the pandemic began, nearly 100,000 renewable energy workers have lost their jobs. We need help from Congress to get American clean energy workers back to work. With commonsense measures like temporary refundability and a delay in the phasedown of renewable energy tax credits, Congress can help restore these good-paying jobs so the renewable sector can continue to provide the affordable, pollution-free power American consumers and businesses want and deserve."
Phil Jordan, Vice President and Principal at BW Research Partnership, said:
"We understand the challenges and limitations of data collection for BLS in the middle of a global pandemic. But any suggestion that a strong employment rebound is underway in the United States simply is not reflected in the clean energy sector right now. And with PPP expiring, that only increases uncertainty in the months ahead."
The report comes as both the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Energy and Commerce Committee are considering clean energy stimulus to restart the U.S. economy, and amid assessments of mixed results from the climate law shaping expectations, and as lawmakers in both the House and Senate are increasing calls for supporting clean energy workers and businesses, including this bicameral letter signed by 57 members of Congress and another signed today by 180 House members.
Industries Hit Hardest
According to the analysis, energy efficiency lost more jobs than any other clean energy sector for the third consecutive month in May, shedding about 18,900 jobs. These workers include electricians, HVAC technicians who work with high-efficiency systems, and manufacturing employees who make Energy Star appliances, LED lighting systems and efficient building materials.
Renewable energy, including solar and wind, lost nearly 4,300 jobs in May.
Clean grid and storage and clean vehicles manufacturing -- including grid modernization, energy storage, car charging and electric and plug-in hybrid vehicle manufacturing -- lost a combined 3,200 jobs in May, as energy crisis impacts electricity, gas, and EVs in several ways.
The clean fuels sector lost more than 650 jobs in May.
States and Localities Hit Across Country
California continues to be the hardest hit state in terms of total job losses, losing 4,313 jobs in May and more than 109,700 since the COVID-19 crisis began. Florida was the second hardest hit state in May, losing an additional 2,563 clean energy jobs, while Georgia, Texas, Washington, and Michigan all suffered more than 1,000 job losses across the sector. An additional 12 states saw at least 500 clean energy unemployment filings, and reports like Pennsylvania's clean energy jobs analysis provide added context, according to the latest analysis.
For a full breakdown of clean energy job losses in each state, along with a list of the hardest hit counties and metro areas, see the full analysis here.
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.
Alberta coal phaseout accelerates as utilities convert to natural gas, cutting emissions under TIER regulations and deploying hydrogen-ready, carbon capture capable plants, alongside new solar projects in a competitive, deregulated electricity market.
Key Points
A provincewide shift from coal to natural gas and renewables, cutting power emissions years ahead of the 2030 target.
✅ Capital Power, TransAlta converting coal units to gas
✅ Hydrogen-ready turbines, solar projects boost renewables
Alberta is set to meet its goal to eliminate coal-fired electricity production years earlier than its 2030 target, amid a broader shift to cleaner energy in the province, thanks to recently announced utility conversion projects.
Capital Power Corp.’s plan to spend nearly $1 billion to switch two coal-fired power units west of Edmonton to natural gas, and stop using coal entirely by 2023, was welcomed by both the province and the Pembina Institute environmental think-tank.
In 2014, 55 per cent of Alberta’s electricity was produced from 18 coal-fired generators. The Alberta government announced in 2015 it would eliminate emissions from coal-fired electricity generation by 2030.
Dale Nally, associate minister of Natural Gas and Electricity, said Friday that decisions by Capital Power and other utilities to abandon coal will be good for the environment and demonstrates investor confidence in Alberta’s deregulated electricity market, where the power price cap has come under scrutiny.
He credited the government’s Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction (TIER) regulations, which put a price on industrial greenhouse gas emissions, as a key factor in motivating the conversions.
“Capital Power’s transition to gas is a great example of how private industry is responding effectively to TIER, as it transitions these facilities to become carbon capture and hydrogen ready, which will drive future emissions reductions,” Nally said in an email.
Capital Power said direct carbon dioxide emissions at its Genesee power facility near Edmonton will be about 3.4 million tonnes per year lower than 2019 emission levels when the project is complete.
It says the natural gas combined cycle units it’s installing will be the most efficient in Canada, adding they will be capable of running on 30 per cent hydrogen initially, with the option to run on 95 per cent hydrogen in future with minor investments.
In November, Calgary-based TransAlta Corp. said it will end operations at its Highvale thermal coal mine west of Edmonton by the end of 2021 as it switches to natural gas at all of its operated coal-fired plants in Canada four years earlier than previously planned.
The Highvale surface coal mine is the largest in Canada, and has been in operation on the south shore of Wabamun Lake in Parkland County since 1970.
The moves by the two utilities and rival Atco Ltd., which announced three years ago it would convert to gas at all of its plants by this year, mean significant emissions reduction and better health for Albertans, said Binnu Jeyakumar, director of clean energy for Pembina.
“Alberta’s early coal phaseout is also a great lesson in good policy-making done in collaboration with industry and civil society,” she said.
“As we continue with this transformation of our electricity sector, it is paramount that efforts to support impacted workers and communities are undertaken.”
She added the growing cost-competitiveness of renewable energy, such as wind power, makes coal plant retirements possible, applauding Capital Power’s plans to increase its investments in solar power.
In Ontario, clean power policy remains a focus as the province evaluates its energy mix.
The company announced it would go ahead with its 75-megawatt Enchant Solar power project in southern Alberta, investing between $90 million and $100 million, and that it has signed a 25-year power purchase agreement with a Canadian company for its 40.5-MW Strathmore Solar project now under construction east of Calgary.
Gaza Electricity Crisis drives severe power cuts in the Gaza Strip, as Hamas-PA tensions and Mahmoud Abbas's supply reductions under blockade spur fuel shortages, hospital strain, and soaring demand for batteries, LED lights, and generators.
Key Points
A prolonged Gaza power shortage from politics, blockade, and fuel cuts, disrupting daily life, hospitals, and water.
✅ Demand surges for batteries, LED lights, and generators
✅ PA cuts to Israel-supplied power deepen shortages
✅ Hospitals, water, and sanitation face critical strain
In Imad Shlayl’s electronics shop in Gaza City, the customers crowding his store are interested in only two products: LED lights and the batteries to power them.
In the already impoverished Gaza Strip, residents have learned to adapt to the fact that electricity is only available for between two and four hours a day.
But fresh anger was sparked when availability was cut further last month, at the request of the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, in an escalation of his conflict with Hamas, the Islamist group.
The shortages have defined how people live their lives, echoing Europe’s energy crisis in other regions: getting up in the middle of the night, if there is power, to run washing machines or turn on water pumps.
Only the wealthy few have frequent, long-lasting access to electricity, even as U.S. brownout risks highlight grid fragility, to power lights and fans and fridges, televisions and wifi routers, in Gaza’s stifling summer heat.
“We used to sell all sorts of things,” says Shlayl. “But it’s different these days. All we sell is batteries and chargers. Because the crisis is so deep we are selling 100 batteries a day when normally we would sell 20.”
Gaza requires 430 megawatts of power to meet daily demand, but receives only half that. Sixty megawatts are supplied by its solitary power station, now short on fuel, while the rest is provided through the Israel’s power sector and funded by Abbas’s West Bank-based Palestinian Authority (PA).
Abbas’s move to cut supplies to Gaza, which is already under a joint Israeli and Egyptian blockade – now in its 11th year – has quickly made him a hate figure among many Gazans, who question why he is punishing 2 million fellow Palestinians in what appears to be an attempt to force Hamas to relinquish control of the territory.
Though business is good for Shlayl, he is angry at the fresh shortages faced by Gazans which, as pandemic power shut-offs elsewhere have shown, affect all areas of life, from hospital emergency wards to clean water supplies.
“I’ve not done anything to be punished by anyone. It is the worst I can remember but we are expecting it to get worse and worse,” he said. “Not just electricity, but other things as well. We are in a very deep descent.”
As well as cutting electricity, the PA has cut salaries for its employees in Gaza by upwards of 30% , prompting thousands to protest on the streets of Gaza city.
Residents also blame Abbas for a backlog in processing the medical referral process for those needing to travel out of Gaza for treatment, although who is at fault in that issue is less clear cut.
The problems facing Gaza – where high levels of unemployment are endemic – is most obvious in the poorest areas.
In Gaza City’s al-Shati refugee camp, home to the head of Hamas’s political bureau, Ismail Haniyeh, whole housing blocks were dark, while in others only a handful of windows were weakly illuminated.
In the one-room kiosk selling pigeons and chickens that he manages, just off the camp’s main market, Ayman Nasser, 32, is sitting on the street with his friends in search of a sea breeze.
His face is illuminated by the light of his mobile phone. He has one battery-powered light burning in his shop.
“Part of the problem is that we don’t have any news. Who should we blame for this? Hamas, Israelis, Abbas?” he said.
A Palestinian girl reads by candle light due to power cut at the Jabalia Camp in Gaza City Facebook Twitter Pinterest A Palestinian girl reads by candlelight due to a power cut at the Jabalia camp in Gaza City. Photograph: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images His friend, Ashraf Kashqin, interrupts: “It is all connected to politics, but it is us who is getting played by the two sides.”
If there is a question that all the Palestinians in Gaza are asking, it is what the ageing and remote Abbas hopes to achieve, a dynamic also seen in Lebanon’s electricity disputes, not least whether he hopes the cuts will lead to an insurrection against Hamas following demonstrations linked to the power supply in January.
While a senior official in the Fatah-led government on the West Bank said last month that the aim behind the move by the PA – which has been paying $12m (£9m) a month for the electricity Israel supplies to Gaza – was to “dry up Hamas’s financial resources”, others are dubious about the timing, the motive and the real impact.
Among them are human rights groups, such as Amnesty International, who have warned it could turn Gaza’s long-running crisis into a major disaster already hitting hospitals and waste treatment plants.
“For 10 years the siege has unlawfully deprived Palestinians in Gaza of their most basic rights and necessities. Under the burden of the illegal blockade and three armed conflicts, the economy has sharply declined and humanitarian conditions have deteriorated severely. The latest power cuts risk turning an already dire situation into a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe,” said Magdalena Mughrabi, of the group.
Then there is the question of timing. “Abbas is probably the only one who knows why he is doing this to Gaza,” adds Mohameir Abu Sa’da, a political science professor at Al Azhar University and analyst.
“I honestly don’t buy what he has been saying for the last three months: that he will take exceptional measures against Hamas to put pressure on it to give up control of the Gaza Strip.
Hydro One Pandemic Relief Fund offers COVID-19 financial assistance, payment flexibility, and Winter Relief to Ontario electricity customers facing hardship, with disconnection protection and customer support to help manage bills during the health crisis.
Key Points
COVID-19 aid offering bill credits, payment flexibility, and disconnection protection for electricity customers.
✅ Financial assistance and bill credits for hardship cases
✅ Flexible payment plans and extended Winter Relief
✅ No-disconnect policy and dedicated customer support hours
We are pleased to announce a Pandemic Relief Fund to assist customers affected by the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). As part of our commitment to customers, we will offer financial assistance as well as increased payment flexibility to customers experiencing hardship. The fund is designed to support customers impacted by these events and those that may experience further impacts.
In addition to this, we've also extended our Winter Relief program, aligning with our ban on disconnections policy so no customer experiencing any hardship has to worry about potential disconnection.
We recognize that this is a difficult time for everyone and we want our customers to know that we’re here to support them. We hope this fund and the added measures, such as extended off-peak rates that help provide our customers peace of mind so they can concentrate on what matters most — keeping their loved ones safe.
If you are concerned about paying your bill, are experiencing hardship or have been impacted by the pandemic, including electricity relief announced by the province, we want to help you. Call us to discuss the fund and see what options are available for you.
CUSTOMER CONTACT CENTRE HOURS Call us at 1-888-664-9376
Monday to Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
KEEPING ONTARIANS AND OUR ELECTRICITY SYSTEM SAFE We recognize the critical role we play in powering communities across the province and our support for the Province of Ontario during COVID-19. This is a responsibility to employees, customers, businesses and the people of Ontario that we take very seriously.
Since the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak began, Hydro One’s Pandemic Team along with our leadership, have been actively monitoring the issues to ensure we can continue to deliver the service Ontarians depend on while keeping our employees, customers and the public safe, even as there has been no cut in peak hydro rates yet for self-isolating customers across Ontario. While the risk in Ontario remains low, we believe we can best protect our people and our operations by taking proactive measures.
As information continues to evolve, our leadership team along with the Pandemic Planning Team and our Emergency Operations Centre are committed to maintaining business continuity while minimizing risk to employees and communities.
Over the days and weeks to come, we will work with the sector and government, which is preparing to extend disconnect moratoriums across the province, to enhance safety protocols and champion the needs of electricity customers in Ontario.
Ontario Hydro Crisis highlights soaring electricity rates, costly subsidies, nuclear refurbishments, and stalled renewables in Ontario. Policy missteps, weak planning, and rising natural gas emissions burden ratepayers while energy efficiency and storage remain underused.
Key Points
High power costs and subsidies from policy errors, nuclear refurbishments, stalled efficiency and renewables in Ontario.
✅ $5.6B yearly subsidy masks electricity rates and deficits
✅ Nuclear refurbishments embed rising costs for decades
✅ Efficiency, storage, and DERs stalled amid weak planning
By Mark Winfield
While the troubled Site C and Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam projects in B.C. and Newfoundland and Labrador have drawn a great deal of national attention over the past few months, Ontario has quietly been having a hydro crisis of its own.
One of the central promises in the 2018 platform of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party was to “clean up the hydro mess,” and then-PC leader Doug Ford vowed to fire Hydro One's leadership as part of that effort. There certainly is a mess, with the costs of subsidies taken from general provincial revenues to artificially lower hydro rates nearing $7 billion annually. That is a level approaching the province’s total pre-COVID-19 annual deficit. After only two years, that will also exceed total expected cost overruns of the Site C and Muskrat Falls projects, currently estimated at $12 billion ($6 billion each).
There is no doubt that Doug Ford’s government inherited a significant mess around the province’s electricity system from the previous Liberal governments of former premiers Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. But the Ford government has also demonstrated a remarkable capacity for undoing the things its predecessors had managed to get right while doubling down on their mistakes.
The Liberals did have some significant achievements. Most notably: coal-fired electricity generation, which constituted 25 per cent of the province’s electricity supply in the early 2000s, was phased out in 2014. The phaseout dramatically improved air quality in the province. There was also a significant growth in renewable energy production. From virtually zero in 2003, the province installed 4,500 MW of wind-powered generation, and 450 MW of solar photovoltaic by 2018, a total capacity more than double that of the Sir Adam Beck Generating Stations at Niagara Falls.
At the same time, public concerns over rising hydro rates flowing from a major reconstruction of the province’s electricity system from 2003 onwards became a central political issue in the province. But rather than reconsider the role of the key drivers of the continuing rate increases – namely the massively expensive and risky refurbishments of the Darlington and Bruce nuclear facilities, the Liberals adopted a financially ruinous Fair Hydro Plan. The central feature of the 2017 plan was a short-term 25 per cent reduction in hydro rates, financed by removing the provincial portion of the HST from hydro bills, and by extending the amortization period for capital projects within the system. The total cost of the plan in terms of lost revenues and financing costs has been estimated in excess of $40 billion over 29 years, with the burden largely falling on future ratepayers and taxpayers.
Decision-making around the electricity system became deeply politicized, and a secret cabinet forecast of soaring prices intensified public debate across Ontario. Legislation adopted by the Wynne government in 2016 eliminated the requirement for the development of system plans to be subject to any form of meaningful regulatory oversight or review. Instead, the system was guided through directives from the provincial cabinet. Major investments like the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments proceeded without meaningful, public, external reviews of their feasibility, costs or alternatives.
The Ford government proceeded to add more layers to these troubles. The province’s relatively comprehensive framework for energy efficiency was effectively dismantled in March, 2019, with little meaningful replacement. That was despite strong evidence that energy efficiency offered the most cost-effective strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and electricity costs.
The Ford government basically retained the Fair Hydro Plan and promised further rate reductions, later tabling legislation to lower electricity rates as well. To its credit, the government did take steps to clarify real costs of the plan. Last year, these were revealed to amount to a de facto $5.6 billion-per-year subsidy coming from general revenues, and rising. That constituted the major portion of the province’s $7.4 billion pre-COVID-19 deficit. The financial hole was deepened further through November’s financial statement, with the addition of a further $1.3 billion subsidy to commercial and industrial consumers. The numbers can only get worse as the costs of the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments become embedded more fully into electricity rates.
The government also quietly dispensed with the last public vestige of an energy planning framework, relieving itself of the requirement to produce a Long-Term Energy Plan every three years. The next plan would normally have been due next month, in February.
Even the gains from the 2014 phaseout of coal-fired electricity are at risk. Major increases are projected in emissions of greenhouse gases, smog-causing nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from natural gas-fired power plants as the plants are run to cover electricity needs during the Bruce and Darlington refurbishments over the next decade. These developments could erode as much as 40 per cent of the improvements in air quality and greenhouse gas emission gained through the coal phaseout.
The province’s activities around renewable energy, energy storage and distributed energy resources are at a standstill, with exception of a few experimental “sandbox” projects, while other jurisdictions face profound electricity-sector change and adapt. Globally, these technologies are seen as the leading edge of energy-system development and decarbonization. Ontario seems to have chosen to make itself an energy innovation wasteland instead.
The overall result is a system with little or no space for innovation that is embedding ever-higher costs while trying to disguise those costs at enormous expense to the provincial treasury and still failing to provide effective relief to low-income electricity consumers.
The decline in electricity demand associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, along with the introduction of a temporary recovery rate for electricity, gives the province an opportunity to step back and consider its next steps with the electricity system. A phaseout of the Fair Hydro Plan electricity-rate reduction and its replacement with a more cost-effective strategy of targeted relief aimed at those most heavily burdened by rising hydro rates, particularly rural and low-income consumers, as reconnection efforts for nonpayment have underscored the hardship faced by many households, would be a good place to start.
Next, the province needs to conduct a comprehensive, public review of electricity options available to it, including additional renewables – the costs of which have fallen dramatically over the past decade – distributed energy resources, hydro imports from Quebec and energy efficiency before proceeding with further nuclear refurbishments.
In the longer term, a transparent, evidence-based process for electricity system planning needs to be established – one that is subject to substantive public and regulatory oversight and review. Finally, the province needs to establish a new organization to be called Energy Efficiency Ontario to revive its efforts around energy efficiency, developing a comprehensive energy-efficiency strategy for the province, covering electricity and natural gas use, and addressing the needs of marginalized communities.
Without these kinds of steps, the province seems destined to continue to lurch from contradictory decision after contradictory decision as the economic and environmental costs of the system’s existing trajectory continue to rise.
Mark Winfield is a professor of environmental studies at York University and co-chair of the university’s Sustainable Energy Initiative.
