ComEd Offers Energy Saving Information for Renters and Customers with Electric Space Heat During Frigid Winter Season

Ontario Electricity Capacity Gap threatens reliability as IESO forecasts shortfalls from the Pickering shutdown and rapid electrification, requiring new low-emission nuclear generation to meet net-zero targets, maintain baseload, and stabilize the grid.

Key Points

Expected 2030 shortfalls from Pickering closure and electrification, requiring new low-emission nuclear to meet net-zero.

✅ IESO projects a 3.6-9.5 GW capacity gap by 2030

✅ Pickering shutdown removes baseload, stressing reliability

✅ New low-emission nuclear needed to meet net-zero targets

Ontario faces an electricity supply shortage and reliability risks in the next four to eight years and will not meet net-zero objectives without building new low-emission, nuclear generation starting as soon as possible, according to a report released yesterday by the Power Workers' Union (PWU). The capacity needed to fill the expected supply gap will be equivalent to doubling the province's planned nuclear fleet in eight years.

The planned closure of the Pickering nuclear power plant in 2025 and the increase in demand from electrification of the economy are the drivers behind a capacity gap in 2030 of at least 3.6 GW which could widen to as much as 9.5 GW, Electrification Pathways for Ontario to Reduce Emissions, finds. Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) has since 2013 been forecasting a significant gap in the province's electricity supply due the closure of Pickering, but has been underestimating the impact of electrification, the report says.

In addition, the electrification of buildings, transport and industry sectors that will be needed to achieve goals of net-zero emissions by 2050 that being set by the federal government and civil society will see the province's electricity demand increase by at least 130% over current planning forecasts, and potentially by over 190%. Leveraging electricity, natural gas and hydrogen synergies can reduce supply needs, but 55 GW of new electricity capacity, including new large-scale nuclear plants, will still be needed by 2050 - four times Ontario's current nuclear and hydro assets - the report finds.

These findings underscore the urgent need for a paradigm shift in Ontario's electricity planning and procurement process, the authors say, adding that immediate action is needed both to mitigate the system reliability risks and enable the significant societal benefits needed to pursue net-zero objectives. Planning for procurement to replace Pickering's capacity, or to pursue life extension options, must begin as soon as possible.

"Policymakers around the world realise climate change can't be tackled without nuclear. Ontario's nuclear fleet has delivered emissions reductions for over 50 years," PWU President Jeff Parnell said. "In fact, without building new nuclear units, Ontario will miss its emission reduction targets and carbon emissions from electricity generation will rise dramatically, as explored in why Ontario's power could get dirtier today."

"This report clearly shows that Ontario cannot sustain the low-carbon status of its hydro and nuclear-based electricity system, decarbonise its economy and meet its carbon reduction targets without new nuclear or continued operation at Pickering in the near term. Most disturbing is the fact that we are already well behind and needed to start planning for this capacity yesterday," he said.

The six operating Candu reactors at Ontario Power Generation's Pickering plant have been kept in operation to provide baseload electricity during the refurbishment of units at the Darlington and Bruce plants. Currently, the company plans to shut down Pickering units 1 and 4 in 2024 and units 5 to 8 in 2025, even as Ontario moves to refurbish Pickering B to extend life.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Duke Energy Clean Energy Strategy advances renewables, battery storage, grid modernization, and energy efficiency to cut carbon, retire coal, and target net-zero by 2050 across the Carolinas with robust IRPs and capital investments.

Key Points

Plan to expand renewables, storage, and grid upgrades to cut carbon and reach net-zero electricity by 2050.

✅ 56B investment in renewables, storage, and grid modernization

✅ Targets 50% carbon reduction by 2030 and net-zero by 2050

✅ Retires coal units; expands energy efficiency and IRPs

Duke Energy says that the company will continue advancing its ambitious clean energy goals without the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) by investing in renewables, battery storage, energy efficiency programs and grid projects that support U.S. electrification efforts.

Duke Energy, the nation's largest electric utility, unveils its new logo. (PRNewsFoto/Duke Energy) (PRNewsfoto/Duke Energy)

Duke Energy's $56 billion capital investment plan will deliver significant customer benefits and create jobs at a time when policymakers at all levels are looking for ways to rebuild the economy in 2020 and beyond. These investments will deliver cleaner energy for customers and communities while enhancing the energy grid to provide greater reliability and resiliency.

"Sustainability and the reduction of carbon emissions are closely tied to our region's success," said Lynn Good, Duke Energy Chair, President and CEO. "In our recent Climate Report, we shared a vision of a cleaner electricity future with an increasing focus on renewables and battery storage in addition to a diverse mix of zero-carbon nuclear, natural gas, hydro and energy efficiency programs.

"Achieving this clean energy vision will require all of us working together to develop a plan that is smart, equitable and ensures the reliability and affordability that will spur economic growth in the region. While we're disappointed that we're not able to move forward with ACP, we will continue exploring ways to help our customers and communities, particularly in eastern North Carolina where the need is great," said Good.

Already a clean-energy leader, Duke Energy has reduced its carbon emissions by 39% from 2005 and remains on track to cut its carbon emissions by at least 50% by 2030, as peers like Alliant's carbon-neutral plan demonstrate broader industry momentum toward decarbonization. The company also has an ambitious clean energy goal of reaching net-zero emissions from electricity generation by 2050. 

In September 2020, Duke Energy plans to file its Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) for the Carolinas after an extensive process of working with the state's leaders, policymakers, customers and other stakeholders. The IRPs will include multiple scenarios to support a path to a cleaner energy future in the Carolinas, reflecting key utility trends shaping resource planning.

Since 2010, Duke Energy has retired 51 coal units totaling more than 6,500 megawatts (MW) and plans to retire at least an additional 900 MW by the end of 2024. In 2019, the company proposed to shorten the book lives of another approximately 7,700 MW of coal capacity in North Carolina and Indiana.

Duke Energy will host an analyst call in early August 2020 to discuss second quarter 2020 financial results and other business and financial updates. The company will also host its inaugural Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investor day in October 2020.

Duke Energy

Duke Energy is transforming its customers' experience, modernizing the energy grid, generating cleaner energy and expanding natural gas infrastructure to create a smarter energy future for the people and communities it serves. The Electric Utilities and Infrastructure unit's regulated utilities serve 7.8 million retail electric customers in six states: North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky. The Gas Utilities and Infrastructure unit distributes natural gas to 1.6 million customers in five states: North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio and Kentucky. The Duke Energy Renewables unit operates wind and solar generation facilities across the U.S., as well as energy storage and microgrid projects.

Duke Energy was named to Fortune's 2020 "World's Most Admired Companies" list and Forbes' "America's Best Employers" list. More information about the company is available at duke-energy.com. The Duke Energy News Center contains news releases, fact sheets, photos, videos and other materials. Duke Energy's illumination features stories about people, innovations, community topics and environmental issues. Follow Duke Energy on Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook.

Forward-Looking Information

This document includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements are based on management's beliefs and assumptions and can often be identified by terms and phrases that include "anticipate," "believe," "intend," "estimate," "expect," "continue," "should," "could," "may," "plan," "project," "predict," "will," "potential," "forecast," "target," "guidance," "outlook" or other similar terminology. Various factors may cause actual results to be materially different than the suggested outcomes within forward-looking statements; accordingly, there is no assurance that such results will be realized. These factors include, but are not limited to:

• The impact of the COVID-19 electricity demand shift on operations and revenues;
• State, federal and foreign legislative and regulatory initiatives, including costs of compliance with existing and future environmental requirements, including those related to climate change, as well as rulings that affect cost and investment recovery or have an impact on rate structures or market prices;
• The extent and timing of costs and liabilities to comply with federal and state laws, regulations and legal requirements related to coal ash remediation, including amounts for required closure of certain ash impoundments, are uncertain and difficult to estimate;
• The ability to recover eligible costs, including amounts associated with coal ash impoundment retirement obligations and costs related to significant weather events, and to earn an adequate return on investment through rate case proceedings and the regulatory process;
• The costs of decommissioning nuclear facilities could prove to be more extensive than amounts estimated and all costs may not be fully recoverable through the regulatory process;
• Costs and effects of legal and administrative proceedings, settlements, investigations and claims;
• Industrial, commercial and residential growth or decline in service territories or customer bases resulting from sustained downturns of the economy and the economic health of our service territories or variations in customer usage patterns, including energy efficiency and demand response efforts and use of alternative energy sources, such as self-generation and distributed generation technologies;
• Federal and state regulations, laws and other efforts designed to promote and expand the use of energy efficiency measures and distributed generation technologies, such as private solar and battery storage, in Duke Energy service territories could result in customers leaving the electric distribution system, excess generation resources as well as stranded costs;
• Advancements in technology;
• Additional competition in electric and natural gas markets and continued industry consolidation;
• The influence of weather and other natural phenomena on operations, including the economic, operational and other effects of severe storms, hurricanes, droughts, earthquakes and tornadoes, including extreme weather associated with climate change;
• The ability to successfully operate electric generating facilities and deliver electricity to customers including direct or indirect effects to the company resulting from an incident that affects the U.S. electric grid or generating resources;
• The ability to obtain the necessary permits and approvals and to complete necessary or desirable pipeline expansion or infrastructure projects in our natural gas business;
• Operational interruptions to our natural gas distribution and transmission activities;
• The availability of adequate interstate pipeline transportation capacity and natural gas supply;
• The impact on facilities and business from a terrorist attack, cybersecurity threats, data security breaches, operational accidents, information technology failures or other catastrophic events, such as fires, explosions, pandemic health events or other similar occurrences;
• The inherent risks associated with the operation of nuclear facilities, including environmental, health, safety, regulatory and financial risks, including the financial stability of third-party service providers;
• The timing and extent of changes in commodity prices and interest rates and the ability to recover such costs through the regulatory process, where appropriate, and their impact on liquidity positions and the value of underlying assets;
• The results of financing efforts, including the ability to obtain financing on favorable terms, which can be affected by various factors, including credit ratings, interest rate fluctuations, compliance with debt covenants and conditions and general market and economic conditions;
• Credit ratings of the Duke Energy Registrants may be different from what is expected;
• Declines in the market prices of equity and fixed-income securities and resultant cash funding requirements for defined benefit pension plans, other post-retirement benefit plans and nuclear decommissioning trust funds;
• Construction and development risks associated with the completion of the Duke Energy Registrants' capital investment projects, including risks related to financing, obtaining and complying with terms of permits, meeting construction budgets and schedules and satisfying operating and environmental performance standards, as well as the ability to recover costs from customers in a timely manner, or at all;
• Changes in rules for regional transmission organizations, including FERC debates on coal and nuclear subsidies and new and evolving capacity markets, and risks related to obligations created by the default of other participants;
• The ability to control operation and maintenance costs;
• The level of creditworthiness of counterparties to transactions;
• The ability to obtain adequate insurance at acceptable costs;
• Employee workforce factors, including the potential inability to attract and retain key personnel;
• The ability of subsidiaries to pay dividends or distributions to Duke Energy Corporation holding company (the Parent);
• The performance of projects undertaken by our nonregulated businesses and the success of efforts to invest in and develop new opportunities;
• The effect of accounting pronouncements issued periodically by accounting standard-setting bodies;
• The impact of U.S. tax legislation to our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows and our credit ratings;
• The impacts from potential impairments of goodwill or equity method investment carrying values; and
• The ability to implement our business strategy, including enhancing existing technology systems.
• Additional risks and uncertainties are identified and discussed in the Duke Energy Registrants' reports filed with the SEC and available at the SEC's website at sec.gov. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the events described in the forward-looking statements might not occur or might occur to a different extent or at a different time than described. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made and the Duke Energy Registrants expressly disclaim an obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

COVID-19 Impact on US Renewable Energy disrupts solar and wind projects, dries up tax equity financing, strains supply chains, delays construction, and slows jobs growth amid limited federal stimulus and uncertain investor appetite.

Key Points

COVID-19 has slowed US clean energy growth by curbing tax equity, disrupting supply chains, and delaying projects.

✅ Tax equity dries up as investor profits fall

✅ Supply chain and construction face pandemic delays

✅ Policy aid and credit extensions sought by industry

Swinerton Renewable Energy had everything it needed to build a promising new solar farm in Texas. It lined up more than 2,000 acres for the $109 million project estimated to generate 400 jobs while under construction. By its completion date, the solar farm was expected to produce 200 megawatts of energy — enough to power about 25,000 homes — and generate big tax breaks for its investors as part of a government program to incentivize clean energy.

But the coronavirus pandemic put everything on hold. The solar farm’s backers aren’t sure they will make enough money from other investments during the pandemic-fueled downturn for those tax breaks to be worth it. So the project has been delayed at least six months.

“This is not a shortage of materials. It is not a pricing issue,” said George Hershman, president of Swinerton Renewable Energy. “Everything was pointing to successful projects.”

The coronavirus crisis is not only battering the oil and gas industry. It’s drying up capital and disrupting supply chains for businesses trying to move the country toward cleaner sources of energy.

While President Trump has promised lifelines for airlines and oil companies struggling with a drastic decrease in demand as Americans remain under stay-at-home orders, there is little focus in Washington on economic relief for this sector, despite a power coalition's call for action to address the pandemic — unlike during the Great Recession a decade ago, when Congress and the Obama administration earmarked an unprecedented sum for renewable energy and more efficient automobiles in a stimulus bill.

“We don’t want to lose our great oil companies,” Trump said during an April 1 news briefing. He so far has not made a similar promise to help wind and solar firms, and none of the four economic rescue and stimulus packages that Congress has passed to respond to the coronavirus crisis set aside any money for renewable energy specifically.

Sign up for our Coronavirus Updates newsletter to track the outbreak. All stories linked in the newsletter are free to access.

The impact of the crisis is already clear: About 106,000 clean-energy workers have already filed for unemployment in March alone, according to an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data by Environmental Entrepreneurs, an advocacy group.

The layoffs are a blow to a sector that has prided itself on official projections that solar installers and wind turbine technicians would be the two fastest growing occupations over the next decade.

The job losses include not just wind and solar construction workers, but also those assembling electric cars and installing energy-efficient appliances, lighting, heating and air conditioning.

“These aren’t left-wing coastal hippies,” said Bob Keefe, executive director of Environmental Entrepreneurs. “These are construction workers who get up every day and lace up their boots and pull on their gloves and go to work putting insulation in our attics.”

Despite the economic turmoil, climate experts say the coronavirus pandemic could be an opportunity to make drastic shifts in the energy landscape, with green investments potentially driving a robust recovery. They say governments around the world should help fund renewable energy and use the turmoil in energy markets to remake the industry and slash carbon dioxide emissions, which will tumble 8 percent this year, according to the International Energy Agency.

The agency said that while global energy demand fell 3.8 percent in the first quarter, renewables were the only source to post an increase in demand, rising 1.5 percent thanks to new renewable power plants, low operating costs and priority on some electricity grids.

But many investors, who rely on a broad mix of investments, are spooked. “Everything is quiet because people want to see where we land with the current crisis, and people are holding on to cash,” said Daniel Klier, the global head of sustainable finance at HSBC bank. “As soon as people have a bit of confidence that the market is recovering, they can get projects going.”

Social distancing and the country’s stay-at-home orders are also having a deep effect on daily operations. The areas hardest hit are installing solar panels on rooftops and adding energy-efficiency measures inside homes — work that often requires face-to-face interactions. Sungevity, once one of the nation’s leading solar-installation companies, laid off 377 workers, most of its workforce, in late March, according to filings with California’s Employment Development Department. The company, which had emerged from a 2017 bankruptcy, cited economic conditions.

The push to promote a more fuel-efficient automobile fleet has also veered off track. The electric car maker Tesla was forced to shut down its factory in Fremont, Calif., just as it was turning up production on its new crossover vehicle, the Model Y.

Lockdown orders across the country led Tesla’s outspoken chief executive, Elon Musk, to launch into an expletive-laden rant during an earnings call last week in which Tesla posted a lukewarm profit of $16 million.

“To say that they cannot leave their house and they will be arrested if they do,” Musk said, “this is fascist.”

Sungevity and Tesla represent only a sliver of the economic pain in this sector across the country. The Solar Energy Industries Association had anticipated a growth in solar jobs, from 250,000 to 300,000, over the course of the year, said the group’s president, Abigail Ross Hopper. Now, she said, half the workforce is at risk.

“Shelter in place puts limitations on how people can work,” she said. “Literally, people don’t want other people inside their houses to fix electrical boxes. And there are no door-to-door sales.”

Bigger projects are also grappling with the pandemic economy, though not as severely. Hopper said the industry was geared up to increase the number of new solar farms, in part to take advantage of federal tax credits. “We were on track to do almost 20 gigawatts, which would have been the highest year yet,” Hopper said. That would have been enough to power about 3.7 million homes. Now she expects new projects will come closer to last year’s 13.27 gigawatts’ worth of new construction, after a report on utility-scale solar delays warned of widespread slowdowns, enough to run approximately 2.5 million homes.

Wind energy companies, too, are bracing for lost progress unless the federal government steps in. The American Wind Energy Association said projects that would add 25 gigawatts of wind power to the U.S. grid are at risk of being scaled back or canceled outright over the next two years because of the pandemic. Altogether, that work represents about 35,000 jobs.

“2019 was a good year for the wind industry,” said Tom Kiernan, the association’s chief executive. “We were expecting 2020 to be an even stronger year.”

One project put on the back burner: an enormous 9 gigawatt offshore wind venture led by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority set to be completed by 2035.

With New York City besieged by coronavirus cases, the authority said it would comply with an executive order from Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D), “pausing” all on-site work on clean-energy projects until at least May 15. Michigan, New Jersey and Pennsylvania also delayed wind turbine projects by deeming construction on them nonessential.

The Danish offshore wind firm Orsted said that plans for offshore U.S. wind installations would move “at a slower pace than originally expected due to a combination of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s prolonged analysis of the cumulative impacts from the build-out of US offshore wind projects, and now also COVID-19 effects.” The company told investors it expects delays on projects off the coasts of New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island totaling almost 3 gigawatts.

The supply chains have also taken a hit during the pandemic: Even if contractors can get the money to erect wind turbines or lay solar arrays, that doesn’t mean they will have the parts. At least two factories that make wind turbine parts — one in North Dakota and another in Iowa — were forced to pause production because of coronavirus outbreaks. Factory shutdowns in China have constrained solar supplies, too.

The key reason for delaying most big solar and wind projects is the use of tax credits known as “tax equity.” These allow investors, such as banks, to use the credits to directly offset their overall tax burdens. But if an investor doesn’t have enough profit to offset the credits, the tax equity could become worthless.

“If your profitability is going down, you don’t have the same appetite,” Hopper said.

Solar and wind industry leaders are pressing Congress and the Trump administration to extend the eligibility period for tax credits that are due to expire, with senators urging support for clean energy in relief packages, and to make the tax credits refundable, meaning the government would issue a check to investors who do not have enough profit to justify their investments.

Currently, big wind turbines get a 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour tax credit if construction begins before the end of this year. Tax credits for residential renewable energy — solar panels and small wind — phase out by the end of 2021, and debate over a potential solar ITC extension continues to shape expectations in the wind market.

The lack of attention to renewables in Congress’s relief efforts so far is in stark contrast to 2009, when the United States spent $112 billion to boost “green” energy, according to the World Resources Institute. The government’s package then provided a mixture of grants and loans for a variety of renewable energy ventures — including a $465 million loan Tesla used to get its Fremont factory off the ground.

This year, a handful of clean-energy firms, including a Connecticut-based manufacturer of fuel cells and an Ohio-based maker of energy-efficient lighting systems, took money from a federal small-business lending program, before funds ran dry in the middle of last month. Broadwind Energy, a maker of steel wind energy towers based outside Chicago, received $9.5 million in small-business loans, one of the biggest totals in the program.

So far, the Trump administration has shown far more eagerness to help American petroleum producers that the president said were “ravaged” by a sharp drop in energy demand. Last month, Trump met with oil executives at the White House, and Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette has floated the idea of bridge loans for struggling oil firms.

During negotiations for the last relief package, congressional Democrats tried to strike a deal to refill the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve in exchange for extending the clean-energy incentives, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) rebuffed those calls.

“Democrats won’t let us fund hospitals or save small businesses unless they get to dust off the Green New Deal,” McConnell said in March.

Already, Democrats are signaling they will make a push again in the next round of stimulus spending.

“Relief and recovery legislation will shape our society for years to come,” said Rep. A. Donald McEachin (D-Va.), vice chair of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition, a caucus that supports renewable energy resources. “We must use these bills to build in a climate-smart way.”

But it remains unclear how much appetite the GOP will have for a deal. “I just don’t know how to handicap that at this point,” said Grant Carlisle, an analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a major environmental group.

Kiernan, the head of the American Wind Energy Association, said his group has “gotten a very good reception with the administration and with the Hill” when it comes to coronavirus relief, but he declined to go into specifics.

In other parts of the world, governments have been providing support for renewables. The European Union has its own Green New Deal, and China is expected to support wind and solar to get the economy moving more quickly.

Some energy analysts note that big oil companies don’t have to wait for government stimulus. The price of oil is so low that they would be better off investing in wind and solar, they say.

“For all these oil companies, the returns on these renewable projects are better than what they can do in the oil and gas industry,” said Sarah Ladislaw, director of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Now is a good time to do that and tell their investors.”

This fits in with their broader goals, analysts contend. After all, Royal Dutch Shell recently matched BP’s earlier promise to aim to be net-zero for carbon emissions by 2050.

Shell’s chief executive Ben van Beurden has said the company would try to protect its low-carbon Integrated Gas and New Energies division from the largest spending cuts as it sought to weather the pandemic. “We must maintain focus on the long term,” he said in a video message. “Society expects nothing less.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

SaskPower Summer Power Demand Record hits 3,520 MW as heat waves drive electricity consumption; grid capacity, renewables expansion, and energy efficiency tips highlight efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions while meeting Saskatchewan's growing load.

Key Points

The latest summer peak load in Saskatchewan: 3,520 MW, driven by heat, with plans to expand capacity and lower emissions.

✅ New peak surpasses last August by 50 MW to 3,520 MW.

✅ Capacity target: 7,000 MW by 2030 with more renewables.

✅ Tips: AC settings, close blinds, delay heat-producing chores.

As the mercury continues to climb in Saskatchewan, where Alberta's summer electricity record offers a regional comparison, SaskPower says the province has set a new summer power demand record.

The Crown says the new record is 3,520 megawatts. It’s an increase of 50 megawatts over the previous record, or enough electricity for 50,000 homes.

“We’ve seen both summer and winter records set every year for a good while now. And if last summer is any indication, we could very well see another record before temperatures cool off heading into the fall,” said SaskPower Vice President of Transmission and Industrial Services Kory Hayko in a written release. “It’s not impossible we’ll break this record again in the coming days. It’s SaskPower’s responsibility to ensure that Saskatchewan people and businesses have the power they need to thrive. That’s what drives our investment of $1 billion every year, as outlined in our annual report, to modernize and grow the province’s electrical system.”

The previous summer consumption record of 3,740 megawatts was set last August, and similar extremes in the Yukon electricity demand highlight broader demand pressures this year. The winter demand record remains higher at 3,792 megawatts, set on Dec. 29, 2017.

SaskPower says it plans to expand its generation capacity from 4,500 megawatts now to 7,000 megawatts in 2030, with a focus on decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and doubling renewable electricity by 2030 as part of its strategy.

To reduce power bills, the Crown suggests turning down or programming air conditioning when residents aren’t home, inspecting the air conditioner to make sure it is operating efficiently, keeping blinds closed to keep out direct sunlight, delaying chores that produce heat and making sure electronics are turned off when people leave the room.

The new record beats the previous summer peak of 3,470 MW, set last August after also being broken twice in July. The winter demand record is still higher at 3,792 MW, which was set on December 29, 2017. To meet growing power demand, and amid projections that Manitoba's electrical demand could double in the next 20 years, SaskPower is expanding its generation capacity from approximately 4,500 MW now to 7,000 MW by 2030 while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent from 2005 levels. To accomplish this, we will be significantly increasing the amount of renewables on our system.

Cooling and heating represents approximately a quarter of residential power bills. To reduce consumption and power bills during heat waves, SaskPower’s customers can:

Turn down or program the air conditioning when no one is home (for every degree that air conditioning is lowered for an eight-hour period, customers can save up to two per cent on their power costs);

Consider having their air conditioning unit inspected to make sure it is operating efficiently;

Keep the heat out by closing blinds and drapes, especially those with direct sunlight;

Delay chores that produce heat and moisture, like dishwashing and laundering, until the cooler parts of the day or evening; and

As with any time of the year, make sure lights, televisions and other electronics are turned off when no one's in the room. For example, a modern gaming console can use as much power as a refrigerator.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Rolling Blackouts expose grid reliability risks amid a heatwave, as CAISO curtails power while solar output fades at sunset, wind stalls, and scarce natural gas and nuclear capacity plus PG&E issues strain imports.

Key Points

Grid outages during heatwaves from low reserves, fading solar, weak wind, and limited firm capacity.

✅ Heatwave demand rose as solar output dropped at sunset

✅ Limited imports and gas, nuclear shortfalls cut reserves

✅ Policy, pricing, and maintenance gaps increased outage risk

Millions of Californians were denied electrical power and thus air conditioning during a heatwave, raising the risk of heatstroke and death, particularly among the elderly and sick. 

The blackouts come at a time when people, particularly the elderly, are forced to remain indoors due to Covid-19, and as later heat waves would test the grid again statewide.

At first, the state’s electrical grid operator last night asked customers to voluntarily reduce electricity use. But after lapses in power supply pushed reserves to dangerous levels it declared a “Stage 3 emergency” cutting off power to people across the state at 6:30 pm.

The immediate reason for the black-outs was the failure of a 500-megawatt power plant and an out-of-service 750-megawatt unit not being available. “There is nothing nefarious going on here,” said a spokeswoman for California Independent System Operator (CAISO). “We are just trying to run the grid.”

But the underlying reasons that California is experiencing rolling black-outs for the second time in less than a year stem from the state’s climate policies, which California policymakers have justified as necessary to prevent deaths from heatwaves, and which it is increasingly exporting to Western states as a model.

In October, Pacific Gas and Electric cut off power to homes across California to avoid starting forest fires after reports that its power lines may have started fires in recent seasons. The utility and California’s leaders had over the previous decade diverted billions meant for grid maintenance to renewables. 

And yesterday, California had to impose rolling blackouts because it had failed to maintain sufficient reliable power from natural gas and nuclear plants, or pay in advance for enough guaranteed electricity imports from other states.

It may be that California’s utilities and their regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission, which is also controlled by Gov. Newsom, didn’t want to spend the extra money to guarantee the additional electricity out of fears of raising California’s electricity prices even more than they had already raised them.

California saw its electricity prices rise six times more than the rest of the United States from 2011 to 2019, helping explain why electricity prices are soaring across the state, due to its huge expansion of renewables. Republicans in the U.S. Congress point to that massive increase to challenge justifications by Democrats to spend $2 trillion on renewables in the name of climate change.

Even though the cost of solar panels declined dramatically between 2011 and 2019, their unreliable and weather-dependent nature meant that they imposed large new costs in the form of storage and transmission to keep electricity as reliable. California’s solar panels and farms were all turning off as the blackouts began, with no help available from the states to the East already in nightfall.

Electricity from solar goes away at the very moment when the demand for electricity rises. “The peak demand was steady in late hours,” said the spokesperson for CAISO, which is controlled by Gov. Gavin Newsom, “and we had thousands of megawatts of solar reducing their output as the sunset.”

The two blackouts in less than a year are strong evidence that the tens of billions that Californians have spent on renewables come with high human, economic, and environmental costs.

Last December, a report by done for PG&E concluded that the utility’s customers could see blackouts double over the next 15 years and quadruple over the next 30.

California’s anti-nuclear policies also contributed to the blackouts. In 2013, Gov. Jerry Brown forced a nuclear power plant, San Onofre, in southern California to close.

Had San Onofre still been operating, there almost certainly would not have been blackouts on Friday as the reserve margin would have been significantly larger. The capacity of San Onofre was double that of the lost generation capacity that triggered the blackout.

California's current and former large nuclear plants are located on the coast, which allows for their electricity to travel shorter distances, and through less-constrained transmission lines than the state’s industrial solar farms, to get to the coastal cities where electricity is in highest demand.

There has been very little electricity from wind during the summer heatwave in California and the broader western U.S., further driving up demand. In fact, the same weather pattern, a stable high-pressure bubble, is the cause of heatwaves, since it brought very low wind for days on end along with very high temperatures.

Things won’t be any better, and may be worse, in the winter, with a looming shortage as it produces far less solar electricity than the summer. Solar plus storage, an expensive attempt to fix problems like what led to this blackout, cannot help through long winters of low output.

California’s electricity prices will continue to rise if it continues to add more renewables to its grid, and goes forward with plans to shut down its last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, in 2025.

Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix.

To manage the increasingly unreliable grid, California will either need to keep its nuclear plant operating, build more natural gas plants, underscoring its reliance on fossil fuels for reliability, or pay ever more money annually to reserve emergency electricity supplies from its neighbors.

After the blackouts last October, Gov. Newsom attacked PG&E Corp. for “greed and mismanagement” and named a top aide, Ana Matosantos, to be his “energy czar.” 

“This is not the new normal, and this does not take 10 years to solve,” Newsom said. “The entire system needs to be reimagined.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC Utilities Commission Site C Dam Questions press BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, stability issues, cost overruns, oversight gaps, seeking transparency for ratepayers and clarity on contracts, mitigation, and the powerhouse and spillway foundations.

Key Points

Inquiry seeking explanations from BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, costs, timelines and oversight for Site C.

✅ Timeline of studies, monitoring, and mitigation actions

✅ Rationale for contracts, costs, and right bank construction

✅ Implications for ratepayers, oversight, and project stability

The watchdog B.C. Utilities Commission has sent BC Hydro 70 questions about the troubled Site C dam, asking when geotechnical risks were first identified and when the project’s assurance board was first made aware of potential issues related to the dam’s stability. 

“I think they’ve come to the conclusion — but they don’t say it — that there’s been a cover-up by BC Hydro and by the government of British Columbia,” former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen told The Narwhal. 

On Oct. 21, The Narwhal reported that two top B.C. civil servants, including the senior bureaucrat who prepares Site C dam documents for cabinet, knew in May 2019 that the project faced serious geotechnical problems due to its “weak foundation” and the stability of the dam was “a significant risk.” 

Get The Narwhal in your inbox!
People always tell us they love our newsletter. Find out yourself with a weekly dose of our ad‑free, independent journalism

“They [the civil servants] would have reported to their ministers and to the government in general,” said Eliesen, who is among 18 prominent Canadians calling for a halt to Site C work until an independent team of experts can determine if the geotechnical problems can be resolved and at what cost.  

“It’s disingenuous for Premier [John] Horgan to try to suggest, ‘Well, I just found out about it recently.’ If that’s the case, he should fire the public servants who are representing the province.” 

The public only found out about significant issues with the Site C dam at the end of July, when BC Hydro released overdue reports saying the project faces unknown cost overruns, schedule delays and, even as it achieved a transmission line milestone earlier, such profound geotechnical troubles that its overall health is classified as ‘red,’ meaning it is in serious trouble. 

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years.”

The Site C dam is the largest publicly funded infrastructure project in B.C.’s history. If completed, it will flood 128 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries, forcing families from their homes and destroying Indigenous gravesites, hundreds of protected archeological sites, some of Canada’s best farmland and habitat for more than 100 species vulnerable to extinction.

Eliesen said geotechnical risks were a key reason BC Hydro’s board of directors rejected the project in the early 1990s, when he was at the helm of BC Hydro.

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years,” said Eliesen, who is also the former Chair and CEO of Ontario Hydro, where Ontario First Nations have urged intervention on a critical electricity line, the former Chair of Manitoba Hydro and the former Chair and CEO of the Manitoba Energy Authority.

Elsewhere, a Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota has faced potential delays, highlighting broader grid planning challenges.

The B.C. Utilities Commission is an independent watchdog that makes sure ratepayers — including BC Hydro customers — receive safe and reliable energy services, as utilities adapt to climate change risks, “at fair rates.”

The commission’s questions to BC Hydro include 14 about the “foundational enhancements” BC Hydro now says are necessary to shore up the Site C dam, powerhouse and spillways. 

The commission is asking BC Hydro to provide a timeline and overview of all geotechnical engineering studies and monitoring activities for the powerhouse, spillway and dam core areas, and to explain what specific risk management and mitigation practices were put into effect once risks were identified.

The commission also wants to know why construction activities continued on the right bank of the Peace River, where the powerhouse would be located, “after geotechnical risks materialized.” 

It’s asking if geotechnical risks played a role in BC Hydro’s decision in March “to suspend or not resume work” on any components of the generating station and spillways.

The commission also wants BC Hydro to provide an itemized breakdown of a $690 million increase in the main civil works contract — held by Spain’s Acciona S.A. and the South Korean multinational conglomerate Samsung C&T Corp. — and to explain the rationale for awarding a no-bid contract to an unnamed First Nation and if other parties were made aware of that contract. 

Peace River Jewels of the Peace Site C The Narwhal
Islands in the Peace River, known as the ‘jewels of the Peace’ will be destroyed for fill for the Site C dam or will be submerged underwater by the dam’s reservoir, a loss that opponents are sharing with northerners in community discussions. Photo: Byron Dueck

B.C. Utilities Commission chair and CEO David Morton said it’s not the first time the commission has requested additional information after receiving BC Hydro’s quarterly progress reports on the Site C dam. 

“Our staff reads them to make sure they understand them and if there’s anything in then that’s not clear we go then we do go through this, we call it the IR — information request — process,” Morton said in an interview.

“There are things reported in here that we felt required a little more clarity, and we needed a little more understanding of them, so that’s why we asked the questions.”

The questions were sent to BC Hydro on Oct. 23, the day before the provincial election, but Morton said the commission is extraordinarily busy this year and that’s just a coincidence. 

“Our resources are fairly strained. It would have been nice if it could have been done faster, it would be nice if everything could be done faster.” 

“These questions are not politically motivated,” Morton said. “They’re not political questions. There’s no reason not to issue them when they’re ready.”

The commission has asked BC Hydro to respond by Nov. 19.

Read more: Top B.C. government officials knew Site C dam was in serious trouble over a year ago: FOI docs

Morton said the independent commission’s jurisdiction is limited because the B.C. government removed it from oversight of the project. 

The commission, which would normally determine if a large dam like the Site C project is in the public’s financial interest, first examined BC Hydro’s proposal to build the dam in the early 1980s.

After almost two years of hearings, including testimony under oath, the commission concluded B.C. did not need the electricity. It found the Site C dam would have negative social and environmental impacts and said geothermal power should be investigated to meet future energy needs. 

The project was revived in 2010 by the BC Liberal government, which touted energy from the Site C dam as a potential source of electricity for California and a way to supply B.C.’s future LNG industry with cheap power.

Not willing to countenance another rejection from the utilities commission, the government changed the law, stripping the commission of oversight for the project. The NDP government, which came to power in 2017, chose not to restore that oversight.

“The approval of the project was exempt from our oversight,” Morton said. “We can’t come along and say ‘there’s something we don’t like about what you’re doing, we’re going to stop construction.’ We’re not in that position and that’s not the focus of these questions.” 

But the commission still retains oversight for the cost of construction once the project is complete, Morton said. 

“The cost of construction has to be recovered in [hydro] rates. That means BC Hydro will need our approval to recover their construction cost in rates, and those are not insignificant amounts, more than $10.7 billion, in all likelihood.” 

In order to recover the cost from ratepayers, the commission needs to be satisfied BC Hydro didn’t spend more money than necessary on the project, Morton said. 

“As you can imagine, that’s not a straight forward review to do after the fact, after a 10-year construction project or whatever it ends up being … so we’re using these quarterly reports as an opportunity to try to stay on top of it and to flag any areas where we think there may be areas we need to look into in the future.”

The price tag for the Site C dam was $10.7 billion before BC Hydro’s announcement at the end of July — a leap from $6.6 billion when the project was first announced in 2010 and $8.8 billion when construction began in 2015. 

Eliesen said the utilities commission should have been asking tough questions about the Site C dam far earlier. 

“They’ve been remiss in their due diligence activities … They should have been quicker in raising questions with BC Hydro, rather than allowing BC Hydro to be exceptionally late in submitting their reports.” 

BC Hydro is late in filing another Site C quarterly report, covering the period from April 1 to June 30. 

The quarterly reports provide the B.C. public with rare glimpses of a project that international hydro expert Harvey Elwin described as being more secretive than any hydro project he has encountered in five decades working on large dams around the world, including in China.

Read more: Site C dam secrecy ‘extraordinary’, international hydro construction expert tells court proceeding

Morton said the commission could have ordered regular reporting for the Site C project if it had its previous oversight capability.

“Then we would have had the ability to follow up and ultimately order any delinquent reports to be filed. In this circumstance, they are being filed voluntarily. They can file it as late as they choose. We don’t have any jurisdiction.” 

In addition to the six dozen questions, the commission has also filed confidential questions with BC Hydro. Morton said confidential information could include things such as competitive bid information. “BC Hydro itself may be under a confidentiality agreement not to disclose it.” 

With oversight, the commission would also have been able to drill down into specific project elements,  Morton said. 

“We would have wanted to ensure that the construction followed what was approved. BC Hydro wouldn’t have the ability to make significant changes to the design and nature of the project as they went along.”

BC Hydro has been criticized for changing the design of the Site C dam to an L-shape, which Eliesen said “has never been done anywhere in the world for an earthen dam.” 

Morton said an empowered commission could have opted to hold a public hearing about the design change and engage its own technical consultants, as it did in 2017 when the new NDP government asked it to conduct a fast-tracked review of the project’s economics. 

Construction Site C Dam
A recent report by a U.S. energy economist found cancelling the Site C dam project would save BC Hydro customers an initial $116 million a year, with increasing savings growing over time. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

The commission’s final report found the dam could cost more than $12 billion, that BC Hydro had a historical pattern of overestimating energy demand and that the same amount of energy could be produced by a suite of renewables, including wind and proposed pumped storage such as the Meaford project, for $8.8 billion or less. 

The NDP government, under pressure from construction trade unions, opted to continue the project, refusing to disclose key financial information related to its decision. 

When the geotechnical problems were revealed in July, the government announced the appointment of former deputy finance minister Peter Milburn as a special Site C project advisor who will work with BC Hydro and the Site C project assurance board to examine the project and provide the government with independent advice.

Eliesen said BC Hydro and the B.C. government should never have allowed the recent diversion of the Peace River to take place given the tremendous geotechnical challenges the project faces and its unknown cost and schedule for completion. 

“It’s a disgrace and scandalous,” he said. “You can halt the river diversion, but you’ve got another four or five years left in construction of the dam. What are you going to do about all the cement you’ve poured if you’ve got stability problems?”

He said it’s counter-productive to continue with advice “from the same people who have been wrong, wrong, wrong,” without calling in independent global experts to examine the geotechnical problems. 

“If you stop construction, whether it takes three or six months, that’s the time that’s required in order to give yourself a comfort level. But continuing to do what you’ve been doing is not the right course. You should have to sit back.”

Eliesen said it reminded him of the Pete Seeger song Waist Deep in the Big Muddy, which tells the story of a captain ordering his troops to keep slogging through a river because they will soon be on dry ground. After the captain drowns, the troops turn around.

“It’s a reflection of the fact that if you don’t look at what’s new, you just keep on doing what you’ve been doing in the past and that, unfortunately, is what’s happening here in this province with this project.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News