Regulatory obstacles to smart grids prevent reliable power

Canada 100% Renewable Power by 2035 envisions a decentralized grid built on wind, solar, energy storage, and efficiency, delivering zero-emission, resilient, low-cost electricity while phasing out nuclear and gas to meet net-zero targets.

Key Points

Zero-emission, decentralized grid using wind, solar, and storage, plus efficiency, to retire fossil and nuclear by 2035.

✅ Scale wind and solar 18x with storage for reliability.

✅ Phase out nuclear and gas; no CCS or offsets needed.

✅ Modernize grids and codes; boost efficiency, jobs, and affordability.

A powerful derecho that left nearly a million people without power in Ontario and Quebec on May 21 was a reminder of the critical importance of electricity in our daily lives.

Canada’s electrical infrastructure could be more resilient to such events, while being carbon-emission free and provide low-cost electricity with a decentralized grid powered by 100 per cent renewable energy, according to a new study from the David Suzuki Foundation (DSF), a vision of an electric, connected and clean future if the country chooses.

This could be accomplished by 2035 by building a lot more solar and wind, despite indications that demand for solar electricity has lagged in Canada, adding energy storage, while increasing the energy efficiency in buildings, and modernizing provincial energy grids. As this happens, nuclear energy and gas power would be phased out. There would also be no need for carbon capture and storage nor carbon offsets, the modeling study concluded.

“Solar and wind are the cheapest sources of electricity generation in history,” said study co-author Stephen Thomas, a mechanical engineer and climate solutions policy analyst at the DSF.

“There are no technical barriers to reaching 100 per cent zero-emission electricity by 2035 nationwide,” Thomas told The Weather Network (TWN). However, there are considerable institutional and political barriers to be overcome, he said.

Other countries face similar barriers and many have found ways to reduce their emissions; for example, the U.S. grid's slow path to 100% renewables illustrates these challenges. There are enormous benefits including improved air quality and health, up to 75,000 new jobs annually, and lower electricity costs. Carbon emissions would be reduced by 200 million tons a year by 2050, just over one quarter of the reductions needed for Canada to meet its overall net zero target, the study stated.

Building a net-zero carbon electricity system by 2035 is a key part of Canada’s 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan. Currently over 80 per cent of the nation’s electricity comes from non-carbon sources including a 15 per cent contribution from nuclear, with solar capacity nearing a 5 GW milestone nationally. How the final 20 per cent will be emission-free is currently under discussion.

The Shifting Power study envisions an 18-fold increase in wind and solar energy, with the Prairie provinces expected to lead growth, along with a big increase in Canada’s electrical generation capacity to bridge the 20 per cent gap as well as replacing existing nuclear power.

The report does not see a future role for nuclear power due to the high costs of refurbishing existing plants, including the challenges with disposal of radioactive wastes and decommissioning plants at their end of life. As for the oft-proposed small modular nuclear reactors, their costs will likely “be much more costly than renewables,” according to the report.

There are no technical barriers to building a bigger, cleaner, and smarter electricity system, agrees Caroline Lee, co-author of the Canadian Climate Institute’s study on net-zero electricity, “The Big Switch” released in May. However, as Lee previously told TWN, there are substantial institutional and political barriers.

In many respects, the Shifting Power study is similar to Lee’s study except it phases out nuclear power, forecasts a reduction in hydro power generation, and does not require any carbon capture and storage, she told TWN. Those are replaced with a lot more wind generation and more storage capacity.

“There are strengths and weaknesses to both approaches. We can do either but need a wide debate on what kind of electricity system we want,” Lee said.

That debate has to happen immediately because there is an enormous amount of work to do. When it comes to energy infrastructure, nearly everything “we put in the ground has to be wind, solar, or storage” to meet the 2035 deadline, she said.

There is no path to net zero by 2050 without a zero-emissions electricity system well before that date. Here are some of the necessary steps the report provided:

Create a range of skills training programs for renewable energy construction and installation as well as building retrofits.

Prioritize energy efficiency and conservation across all sectors through regulations such as building codes.

Ensure communities and individuals are fully informed and can decide if they wish to benefit from hosting energy generation infrastructure.

Create a national energy poverty strategy to ensure affordable access.

Strong and clear federal and provincial rules for utilities that mandate zero-emission electricity by 2035.

For Indigenous communities, make sure ownership opportunities are available along with decision-making power.

Canada should move as fast as possible to 100 per cent renewable energy to gain the benefits of lower energy costs, less pollution, and reduced carbon emissions, says Stanford University engineer and energy expert Mark Jacobson.

“Canada has so many clean, renewable energy resources that it is one of the easier countries [that can] transition away from fossil fuels,” Jacobson told TWN.

For the past decade, Jacobson has been producing studies and technical reports on 100 per cent renewable energy, including a new one for Canada, even as Canada is often seen as a solar power laggard today. The Stanford report, A Solution to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Insecurity for Canada, says a 100 per cent transition by 2035 timeline is ideal. Where it differs from DSF’s Shifting Power report is that it envisions offshore wind and rooftop solar panels which the latter did not.

“Our report is very conservative. Much more is possible,” agrees Thomas.

“We’re lagging behind. Canadians really want to get going on building solutions and getting the benefits of a zero emissions electricity system.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Duke Energy Clean Energy Strategy targets smart grid upgrades, wind and solar expansion, efficient gas, and high-reliability nuclear, cutting CO2, boosting decarbonization, and advancing energy efficiency and reliability for the Carolinas.

Key Points

A plan investing in smart grids, renewables, gas, and nuclear to cut CO2 and enhance reliability and efficiency by 2030.

✅ US$25bn smart grid upgrades; US$11bn renewables and gas

✅ 40% CO2 reduction and >80% low-/zero-carbon generation by 2030

✅ 2017 nuclear fleet 95.64% capacity factor; ~90 TWh carbon-free

The US power group Duke Energy plans to invest US$25bn on grid modernization over the 2017-2026 period, including the implementation of smart grid technologies to cope with the development of renewable energies, along with US$11bn on the expansion of renewable (wind and solar) and gas-fired power generation capacities.

The company will modernize its fleet and expects more than 80% of its power generation mix to come from zero and lower CO2 emitting sources, aligning with nuclear and net-zero goals, by 2030. Its current strategy focuses on cutting down CO2 emissions by 40% by 2030. Duke Energy will also promote energy efficiency and expects cumulative energy savings - based on the expansion of existing programmes - to grow to 22 TWh by 2030, i.e. the equivalent to the annual usage of 1.8 million households.

#google#

Duke Energy’s 11 nuclear generating units posted strong operating performance in 2017, as U.S. nuclear costs hit a ten-year low, providing the Carolinas with nearly 90 billion kilowatt-hours of carbon-free electricity – enough to power more than 7 million homes.

Globally, China's nuclear program remains on a steady development track, underscoring broader industry momentum.

“Much of our 2017 success is due to our focus on safety and work efficiencies identified by our nuclear employees, along with ongoing emphasis on planning and executing refueling outages to increase our fleet’s availability for producing electricity,” said Preston Gillespie, Duke Energy chief nuclear officer.

Some of the nuclear fleet’s 2017 accomplishments include, as a new U.S. reactor comes online nationally:

• The 11 units achieved a combined capacity factor of 95.64 percent, second only to the fleet’s 2016 record of 95.72 percent, marking the 19th consecutive year of attaining a 90-plus percent capacity factor (a measure of reliability).
• The two units at Catawba Nuclear Station produced more than 19 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, and the single unit at Harris Nuclear Plant generated more than 8 billion kilowatt-hours, both setting 12-month records.
• Brunswick Nuclear Plant unit 2 achieved a record operating run.
• Both McGuire Nuclear Station units completed their shortest refueling outages ever and unit 1 recorded its longest operating run.
• Oconee Nuclear Station unit 2 achieved a fleet record operating run.

The Robinson Nuclear Plant team completed the station’s 30th refueling outage, which included a main generator stator replacement and other life-extension activities, well ahead of schedule.

“Our nuclear employees are committed to providing reliable, clean electricity every day for our Carolinas customers,” added Gillespie. “We are very proud of our team’s 2017 accomplishments and continue to look for additional opportunities to further enhance operations.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Atlantic Canada EV adoption lags, a new poll finds, as fewer buyers consider electric vehicles amid limited charging infrastructure, lower provincial rebates, and affordability pressures in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland compared to B.C. and Quebec.

Key Points

Atlantic Canada EV adoption reflects demand, shaped by rebates, charging access, costs, and the regional energy mix.

✅ Poll shows lowest purchase intent in Atlantic Canada

✅ Lack of rebates and charging slows EV consideration

✅ Income and energy mix affect affordability and benefits

Atlantic Canadians are the least likely to buy a car, truck or SUV in the next year and the most skittish about going electric, according to a new poll. 

Only 31 per cent of Nova Scotians are looking at buying a new or used vehicle before December 2021 rolls around. And just 13 per cent of Newfoundlanders who are planning to buy are considering an electric vehicle. Both those numbers are the lowest in the country. Still, 47 per cent of Nova Scotians considering buying in the next year are thinking about electric options, according to the numbers gathered online by Logit Group and analyzed by Halifax-based Narrative Research. That compares to 41 per cent of Canadians contemplating a vehicle purchase within the next year, with 54 per cent of them considering going electric. 

“There’s still a high level of interest,” said Margaret Chapman, chief operating officer at Narrative Research.  

“I think half of people who are thinking about buying a vehicle thinking about electric is pretty significant. But I think it’s a little lower in Atlantic Canada compared to other parts of the country probably because the infrastructure isn’t quite what it might be elsewhere. And I think also it’s the availability of vehicles as well. Maybe it just hasn’t quite caught on here to the extent that it might have in, say, Ontario or B.C., where the highest level of interest is.” 

Provincial rebates
Provincial rebates also serve to create more interest, she said, citing New Brunswick's rebate program as an example in the region. 

“There’s a $7,500 rebate on top of the $5,000 you get from the feds in B.C. But in Nova Scotia there’s no provincial rebate,” Chapman said. “So I think that kind of thing actually is significant in whether you’re interested in buying an electric vehicle or not.” 

The survey was conducted online Nov. 11–13 with 1,231 Canadian adults. 

Of the people across Canada who said they were not considering an electric vehicle purchase, 55 per cent said a provincial rebate would make them more likely to consider one, she said.  

In Nova Scotia, that number drops to 43 per cent. 

Nova Scotia families have the lowest median after-tax income in the country, according to numbers released earlier this year.  

The national median in 2018 was $61,400, according to Statistics Canada. Nova Scotia was at the bottom of the pack with $52,200, up from $51,400 in 2017. 

So big price tags on electric vehicles might put them out of reach for many Nova Scotians, and a recent cost-focused survey found similar concerns nationwide. 

“I think it’s probably that combination of cost and infrastructure,” Chapman said. 

“But you saw this week in the financial update from the federal government that they’re putting $150 million into new charging station, so were some of that cash to be spread in Atlantic Canada, I’m sure there would be an increase in interest … The more charging stations around you see, you think ‘Alright, it might not be so hard to ensure that I don’t run out of power for my car.’ All of that stuff I think will start to pick up. But right now it is a little bit lagging in Atlantic Canada, and in Labrador infrastructure still lags despite a government push in N.L. to expand EVs.” 

'Simple dollars and cents'
The lack of a provincial government rebate here for electric vehicles definitely factors into the equation, said Sean O’Regan, president and chief executive officer of O'Regan's Automotive Group.  

“Where you see the highest adoption are in the provinces where there are large government rebates,” he said. “It’s a simple dollars and cents (thing). In Quebec, when you combine the rebates it’s up to over $10,000, if not $12,000, towards the car. If you can get that kind of a rebate on a car, I don’t know that it would matter much what it was – it would help sell it.” 

A lot of people who want to buy electric cars are trying to make a conscious decision about the environment, O’Regan said. 

While Nova Scotia Power is moving towards renewable energy, he points out that much of our electricity still comes from burning coal and other fossil fuels, and N.L. lags in energy efficiency as the region works to improve.  

“So the power that you get is not necessarily the cleanest of power,” O’Regan said. “The green advantage is not the same (in Nova Scotia as it is in provinces that produce a lot of hydro power).” 

Compared to five years ago, the charging infrastructure here is a lot better, he said. But it doesn’t compare well to provinces including Quebec and B.C., though Newfoundland recently completed its first fast-charging network for electric car owners. 

“Certainly (with) electric cars – we're selling more and more and more of them,” O'Regan said, noting the per centage would be in the single digits of his overall sales. “But you're starting from zero a few years ago.” 

The highest number of people looking at buying electric cars was in B.C., with 57 per cent of those looking at buying a car saying they’d go electric, and even in southern Alberta interest is growing; like Bob Dylan in 1965 at the Newport Folk Festival.  

“The trends move from west to east across Canada,” said Jeff Farwell, chief executive officer of the All EV Canada electric car store in Burnside.  

“I would use the example of the craft beer market. It started in B.C. about 15 years before it finally went crazy in Nova Scotia. And if you look at Vancouver right now there’s (electric vehicles) everywhere.” 

Expectations high
Farwell expects electric vehicle sales to take off faster in Atlantic Canada than the craft beer market. “A lot faster.” 

His company also sells used electric vehicles in Prince Edward Island and is making moves to set up in Moncton, N.B. 

He’s been talking to Nova Scotia’s Department of Energy and Mines about creating rebates here for new and used electric vehicles. 

 “I guess they’re interested, but nothing’s happened,” Farwell said.  

Electric vehicles require “a bit of a lifestyle change,” he said. 

“The misconception is it takes a lot longer to charge a vehicle if it’s electric and gas only takes me 10 minutes to fill up at the gas station,” Farwell said.  

“The reality is when I go home at night, I plug my vehicle in,” he said. “I get up in the morning and I unplug it and I never have to think about it. It takes two seconds.”  
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

DOE Wind Energy Funding backs 13 R&D projects advancing offshore wind, distributed energy, and utility-scale turbines, including microgrids, battery storage, nacelle and blade testing, tall towers, and rural grid integration across the United States.

Key Points

DOE Wind Energy Funding is a $28M R&D effort in offshore, distributed, and utility-scale wind to lower cost and risk.

✅ $6M for rural microgrids, storage, and grid integration.

✅ $7M for offshore R&D, nacelle and long-blade testing.

✅ Up to $10M demos; $5M for tall tower technology.

The U.S. Department of Energy announced that in order to advance wind energy in the U.S., 13 projects have been selected to receive $28 million. Project topics focus on technology development while covering distributed, offshore wind growth and utility-scale wind found on land.

The selections were announced by the DOE’s Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Daniel R. Simmons, at the American Wind Energy Association Offshore Windpower Conference in Boston, as New York's offshore project momentum grows nationwide.

Wind Project Awards

According to the DOE, four Wind Innovations for Rural Economic Development projects will receive a total of $6 million to go toward supporting rural utilities via facilitating research drawing on U.K. wind lessons for deployment that will allow wind projects to integrate with other distributed energy resources.

These endeavors include:

Bergey WindPower (Norman, Oklahoma) working on developing a standardized distributed wind/battery/generator micro-grid system for rural utilities;

Electric Power Research Institute (Palo Alto, California) working on developing modeling and operations for wind energy and battery storage technologies, as large-scale projects in New York progress, that can both help boost wind energy and facilitate rural grid stability;

Iowa State University (Ames, Iowa) working on optimization models and control algorithms to help rural utilities balance wind and other energy resources; and

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (Arlington, Virginia) providing the development of standardized wind engineering options to help rural-area adoption of wind.

Another six projects are to receive a total of $7 million to facilitate research and development in offshore wind, as New York site investigations advance, with these projects including:

Clemson University (North Charleston, South Carolina) improving offshore-scale wind turbine nacelle testing via a “hardware-in-the-loop capability enabling concurrent mechanical, electrical and controller testing on the 7.5-megawatt dynamometer at its Wind Turbine Drivetrain Testing Facility to accelerate 1 GW on the grid progress”; and

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (Boston) upgrading its Wind Technology Testing Center to facilitate structural testing of 85- to 120-meter-long (roughly 278- to 393-foot-long) blades, as BOEM lease requests expand, among other projects.

Additionally, two offshore wind technology demonstration projects will receive up to $10 million for developing initiatives connected to reducing wind energy risk and cost. One last project will also be granted $5 million for the development of tall tower technology that can help overcome restrictions associated with transportation.

“These projects will be instrumental in driving down technology costs and increasing consumer options for wind across the United States as part of our comprehensive energy portfolio,” said Simmons.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy 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

Russia-Ukraine Energy Ceasefire Violations escalate as U.S.-brokered truce frays, with drone strikes, shelling, and grid attacks disrupting gas supply and power infrastructure across Kursk, Luhansk, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk, prompting sanctions calls.

Key Points

Alleged breaches of a U.S.-brokered truce, with both sides striking power grids, gas lines, and critical energy nodes.

✅ Drone and artillery attacks reported on power and gas assets

✅ Both sides accuse each other of breaking truce terms

✅ U.S. mediation faces verification and compliance hurdles

Russia and Ukraine have traded fresh accusations regarding violations of a fragile energy ceasefire, brokered by the United States, which both sides had agreed to last month. These new allegations highlight the ongoing tensions between the two nations and the challenges involved in implementing a truce amid global energy instability in such a complex and volatile conflict.

The U.S.-brokered ceasefire had initially aimed to reduce the intensity of the fighting, specifically in the energy sector, where both sides had previously targeted each other’s infrastructure. Despite this agreement, the accusations on Wednesday suggest that both Russia and Ukraine have continued their attacks on each other's energy facilities, a crucial aspect of the ceasefire’s terms.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence claimed that Ukrainian forces had launched drone and shelling attacks in the western Kursk region, cutting power to over 1,500 homes. This attack allegedly targeted key infrastructure, leaving several localities without electricity. Additionally, in the Russian-controlled part of Ukraine's Luhansk region, a Ukrainian drone strike hit a gas distribution station, severely disrupting the gas supply for over 11,000 customers in the area around Svatove.

In response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Russia of breaking the ceasefire. He claimed that Russian drone strikes had targeted an energy substation in Ukraine’s Sumy region, while artillery fire had damaged a power line in the Dnipropetrovsk region, leaving nearly 4,000 consumers without power even as Ukraine increasingly leans on electricity imports to stabilize the grid. Ukraine's accusations painted a picture of continued Russian aggression against critical energy infrastructure, a strategy that had previously been a hallmark of Russia’s broader military operations in the war.

The U.S. had brokered the energy truce as a potential stepping stone toward a more comprehensive ceasefire agreement. However, the repeated violations raise questions about the truce’s viability and the broader prospects for peace between Russia and Ukraine. Both sides are accusing each other of undermining the agreement, which had already been delicate due to previous suspicions and mistrust. In particular, the U.S. administration, led by President Donald Trump, has expressed impatience with the slow progress in moving toward a lasting peace, amid debates over U.S. national energy security priorities.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov defended Russia’s stance, emphasizing that President Vladimir Putin had shown a commitment to peace by agreeing to the energy truce, despite what he termed as daily Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure. He reiterated that Russia would continue to cooperate with the U.S., even though the Ukrainian strikes were ongoing. This perspective suggests that Russia remains committed to the truce but views Ukraine’s actions as violations that could potentially derail efforts to reach a more comprehensive ceasefire.

On the other hand, President Zelensky argued that Russia was not adhering to the terms of the ceasefire. He urged the U.S. to take a stronger stance against Russia, including increasing sanctions on Moscow as punishment for its violations. Zelensky’s call for heightened sanctions is a continuation of his efforts to pressure international actors, particularly the U.S. and European countries, to provide greater energy security support for Ukraine’s struggle and to hold Russia accountable for its actions.

The ceasefire’s fragility is also reflected in the differing views between Ukraine and Russia on what constitutes a successful resolution. Ukraine had proposed a full 30-day ceasefire, but President Putin declined, raising concerns about monitoring and verifying compliance with the terms. This disagreement suggests that both sides are not entirely aligned on what a peaceful resolution should look like and how it can be realistically achieved.

The situation is complicated by the broader context of the war, which has now dragged on for over three years. The conflict has seen significant casualties, immense destruction, and deep geopolitical ramifications. Both countries are heavily reliant on their energy infrastructures, making any attack on these systems not only a military tactic but also a form of economic warfare. Energy resources, including electricity and natural gas, have become central to the ongoing conflict, with both sides using them to exert pressure on the other amid Europe's deepening energy crisis that reverberates beyond the battlefield.

As of now, it remains unclear whether the recent violations of the energy ceasefire will lead to a breakdown of the truce or whether the United States will intervene further to restore compliance, even as Ukraine prepares for winter amid energy challenges. The situation remains fluid, and the international community continues to closely monitor the developments. The U.S., which played a central role in brokering the energy ceasefire, has made it clear that it expects both sides to uphold the terms of the agreement and work toward a more permanent cessation of hostilities.

The continued accusations between Russia and Ukraine regarding the breach of the energy ceasefire underscore the challenges of negotiating peace in such a complex and entrenched conflict. While both sides claim to be upholding their commitments, the reality on the ground suggests that reaching a full and lasting peace will require much more than temporary truces. The international community, particularly the U.S., will likely continue to push for stronger actions to enforce compliance and to prevent the conflict from further escalating. The outcome of this dispute will have significant implications for both countries and the broader European energy landscape and security landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News