First Solar, the Tempe-based producer of photovoltaic solar panels, said it has scored a major breakthrough by reducing the cost of manufacturing its modules to less than $1 per watt.
But utility industry officials say the cost will have to go still lower before photovoltaic technology is cost-competitive with conventionally generated electricity. Solar energy will need government support and subsidies for another five to 10 years, they say.
First Solar uses thin-film technology to convert sunlight into electric current without the need for silicon, a more expensive material used in most photovoltaic cells. Also the company said it is benefitting from mass production techniques as demand soars for its modules.
In a statement, the company said it reduced its manufacturing cost for solar modules in the fourth quarter to 98 cents per watt, the first time sub-$1 production has been achieved.
The company has reduced its production costs by two-thirds in four years - from more than $3 a watt in 2004, the company said.
"This achievement marks a milestone in the solar industry's evolution toward providing truly sustainable energy solutions," said Chief Executive Mike Ahearn.
The company plans to continue to ramp up production from the current 500 megawatts to 1 gigawatt - the equivalent of an average-sized nuclear power plant - by the end of this year, he said.
Officials of Arizona utility companies said they were impressed by First Solar's achievements.
"It's exciting stuff," said Steven Gotfried, a spokesman for Arizona Public Service.
But he added that comparing the cost of First Solar's modules in a residential rooftop system with electricity supplied from a conventional fossil-fuel power plant is not straightforward. That's because the solar panels constitute only about one-third of the cost of a residential rooftop system, he said. There are other costs such as converters and wiring that have to be factored into the equation, he said.
And, of course, you have to consider that photovoltaic panels can't produce much electricity at night or on cloudy days.
On the other hand, the fuel - sunlight - is free, while conventional power plants require coal, natural gas or nuclear fuel, whose ongoing cost has to be considered.
"It's hard to compare," he said.
Market factors are also playing a major role determining the cost of solar energy, said Chico Hunter, senior engineer for Salt River Project.
Although the cost of making solar panels is declining, the demand is so great that they are selling for pretty much what the market will bear, he said.
"You may produce it for less, but that doesn't mean you sell it for less," he said.
But Hunter applauded First Solar for being so public about its production costs, saying it will put pressure on the retail and installing segments of the industry to reduce end costs to the consumer rather than jack up profits with big markups.
First Solar has been selling most of its modules in Europe, where government subsidies are generous. But the company has started doing business in California, and SRP is negotiating with the company to expand the availability of the technology in Arizona, said Lori Singleton, SRP's manager of sustainability initiatives.
In Arizona, homeowners are eligible for tax credits and utility-company rebates to reduce the cost of installing solar systems. But Singleton said solar technology may catch on faster in places like California, where the price of conventional electricity is higher than here.
First Solar's Ahearn said government subsidies and support from countries like Germany are making it possible to reduce production costs.
"Without forward-looking government programs supporting solar electricity, we would not have been able to invest in the capacity expansion which gives us the scale to bring costs down," he said.
Calgary Winter Storm and Extreme Cold delivers heavy snowfall, ECCC warnings, blowing snow, icy roads, and dangerous wind chill across southern Alberta, as a low-pressure system and northerly inflow fuel hazardous travel and frostbite risks.
Key Points
A severe Alberta storm with heavy snow, strong winds, ECCC warnings, dangerous wind chill, and high frostbite risk.
✅ ECCC extends snowfall and winter storm warnings regionwide.
✅ Wind chill -28 to -47; frostbite possible within 5-30 minutes.
✅ AMA rescues surge; non-essential travel strongly discouraged.
Calgary and much of southern Alberta faced a significant winter storm that brought heavy snowfall, strong winds, and dangerously low temperatures. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) issued extended and expanded snowfall and winter storm warnings as persistent precipitation streamed along the southern borders. The combination of a low-pressure system off the West Coast, where a B.C. 'bomb cyclone' had left tens of thousands without power, and a northerly inflow at the surface led to significant snow accumulations in a short period.
The storm resulted in poor driving conditions across much of southern Alberta, with snow-packed and icy roads, as well as limited visibility due to blowing snow. ECCC advised postponing non-essential travel until conditions improved. As of 10 a.m. on January 17, the 511 Alberta map showed poor driving conditions throughout the region, while B.C. electricity demand hit an all-time high amid the cold.
In Calgary, the city recorded four centimeters of snow on January 16, with an additional four centimeters expected on January 17. Temperatures remained far below seasonal averages until the end of the week, and Calgary electricity use tends to surge during such cold snaps according to Enmax, with improvements starting on Sunday.
The extreme cold posed significant risks, with wind chills of -28 to -39 capable of causing frostbite in 10 to 30 minutes, as a Quebec power demand record illustrated during the deep freeze. When wind chills dropped to -40 to -47, frostbite could occur in as little as five to 10 minutes. Residents were advised to watch for signs of frostbite, including color changes on fingers and toes, pain, numbness, tingling sensations, or swelling. Those most at risk included young children, older adults, people with chronic illnesses, individuals working or exercising outdoors, and those without proper shelter.
In response to the severe weather, the Alberta Motor Association (AMA) experienced a surge in calls for roadside assistance. Between January 12 and 14, there were approximately 32,000 calls, with about 22,000 of those requiring rescues between January 12 and 14. The high volume of requests led the AMA to temporarily cease providing wait time updates on their website due to the inability to provide accurate information, while debates over Alberta electricity prices also intensified during the cold.
The storm also had broader implications across Canada. Heavy snow was expected to fall across wide swaths of southern British Columbia and parts of southern Alberta, as BC Hydro's winter payment plan offered billing relief to customers during the stretch. Northern Alberta was under extreme cold warnings, with temperatures expected to dip to -40°C through the rest of the week. Similar extreme cold was forecast for southern Ontario, with wind chill values reaching -30°C.
As the storm progressed, conditions began to improve. The wind warning for central Alberta ended by January 17, though a blowing snow advisory remained in effect for the southeast corner of the province. Northwest winds gusting up to 90 km/h combined with falling snow continued to cause poor visibility in some areas, while California power outages and landslides were reported amid concurrent severe storms along the coast. Conditions were expected to improve by mid-morning.
In the aftermath of the storm, residents were reminded of the importance of preparedness and caution during severe winter weather. Staying informed through official weather advisories, adjusting travel plans, and taking necessary precautions can help mitigate the risks associated with such extreme conditions.
U.S. Energy Transition traces the shift from coal and oil to natural gas, nuclear power, and renewables like wind and solar, driven by efficiency, grid modernization, climate goals, and economic innovation.
Key Points
The U.S. Energy Transition is the shift from fossil fuels to cleaner power, driven by tech, policy, and markets.
✅ Shift from coal and oil to gas, nuclear, wind, and solar
✅ Enabled by grid modernization, storage, and efficiency
✅ Aims to cut emissions while ensuring reliability and affordability
The evolution of energy use in the United States is a dynamic narrative that reflects technological advancements, economic shifts, environmental awareness, and societal changes over time. From the nation's early reliance on wood and coal to the modern era dominated by oil, natural gas, and renewable sources, the story of energy consumption in the U.S. is a testament to innovation and adaptation.
Early Energy Sources: Wood and Coal
In the early days of U.S. history, energy needs were primarily met through renewable resources such as wood for heating and cooking. As industrialization took hold in the 19th century, coal emerged as a dominant energy source, fueling steam engines and powering factories, railways, and urban growth. The widespread availability of coal spurred economic development and shaped the nation's infrastructure.
The Rise of Petroleum and Natural Gas
The discovery and commercialization of petroleum in the late 19th century transformed the energy landscape once again. Oil quickly became a cornerstone of the U.S. economy, powering transportation, industry, and residential heating, and informing debates about U.S. energy security in policy circles. Concurrently, natural gas emerged as a significant energy source, particularly for heating and electricity generation, as pipelines expanded across the country.
Electricity Revolution
The 20th century witnessed a revolution in electricity generation and consumption, and understanding where electricity comes from helps contextualize how systems evolved. The development of hydroelectric power, spurred by projects like the Hoover Dam and Tennessee Valley Authority, provided clean and renewable energy to millions of Americans. The widespread electrification of rural areas and the proliferation of appliances in homes and businesses transformed daily life and spurred economic growth.
Nuclear Power and Energy Diversification
In the mid-20th century, nuclear power emerged as a promising alternative to fossil fuels, promising abundant energy with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. Despite concerns about safety and waste disposal, nuclear power plants became a significant part of the U.S. energy mix, providing a stable base load of electricity, even as the aging U.S. power grid complicates integration of variable renewables.
Renewable Energy Revolution
In recent decades, the U.S. has seen a growing emphasis on renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal power, yet market shocks and high fuel prices alone have not guaranteed a rapid green revolution, prompting broader policy and investment responses. Advances in technology, declining costs, and environmental concerns have driven investments in clean energy infrastructure and policies promoting renewable energy adoption. States like California and Texas lead the nation in wind and solar energy production, demonstrating the feasibility and benefits of transitioning to sustainable energy sources.
Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Alongside shifts in energy sources, improvements in energy efficiency and conservation have played a crucial role in reducing per capita energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Energy-efficient appliances, building codes, and transportation innovations have helped mitigate the environmental impact of energy use while reducing costs for consumers and businesses, and weather and economic factors also influence demand; for example, U.S. power demand fell in 2023 on milder weather, underscoring the interplay between efficiency and usage.
Challenges and Opportunities
Looking ahead, the U.S. faces both challenges and opportunities in its energy future, as recent energy crisis effects ripple across electricity, gas, and EVs alike. Addressing climate change requires further investments in renewable energy, grid modernization, and energy storage technologies. Balancing energy security, affordability, and environmental sustainability remains a complex task that requires collaboration between government, industry, and society.
Conclusion
The evolution of energy use throughout U.S. history reflects a continuous quest for innovation, economic growth, and environmental stewardship. From wood and coal to nuclear power and renewables, each era has brought new challenges and opportunities in meeting the nation's energy needs. As the U.S. transitions towards a cleaner and more sustainable energy future, leveraging technological advancements and embracing policy solutions, amid debates over U.S. energy dominance, will be essential in shaping the next chapter of America's energy story.
Ontario Gas Plant Expansion aims to boost grid reliability as nuclear refurbishments proceed, using natural gas to meet electricity demand, despite critics urging renewables, energy storage, and efficiency to reduce carbon emissions, protecting investment growth.
Key Points
Ontario plan to expand gas plants for reliability during nuclear outages, sparking debate on emissions and clean options.
✅ IESO data: gas share rose from 4% (2017) to 10.4% (2022).
✅ Government cites nuclear refurbishments and demand growth.
✅ Critics propose storage, wind, solar, and efficiency.
The Ontario government is preparing to expand gas-fired power plants in Ontario; a move critics say will make the province's electricity system dirtier and could eventually leave taxpayers on the hook.
The province is currently soliciting bids for additional gas-fired electricity generation, which means new gas plants get built, or existing gas plants get expanded.
It's poised to be Ontario's biggest increase in the gas-fired power supply in more than a decade since the previous Liberal government scrapped two gas plants, in Mississauga and Oakville, at a cost the auditor general pegged at around $1 billion.
Doug Ford's energy minister, Todd Smith, says Ontario needs gas plants now to help meet an expected surge in demand for electricity as the province faces a supply shortfall in the coming years and to provide power while some units of the province's nuclear stations are down for refurbishment.
"It's really important to have natural gas as an insurance policy to keep the lights on and provide the reliability that we need," Smith said in an interview.
"We need natural gas for the short term, especially to get us through these refurbishments."
The portion of Ontario's electricity supply that comes from natural gas matters for the environment and the province's economy. Manufacturing companies increasingly seek clean power that emits as little carbon dioxide as possible.
The portion of Ontario's electricity supply that comes from natural gas matters for the environment and the province's economy. Manufacturing companies increasingly seek a power supply that emits as little carbon dioxide as possible.
Increasing the amount of gas-fired generation in the electricity system puts Ontario's ability to attract such investments at risk as it complicates balancing demand and emissions across the grid, says Evan Pivnick, program manager with Clean Energy Canada, a think tank.
"Building new natural gas (power plants) in Ontario today should be seen as an absolute last resort for meeting our energy needs," said Pivnick in an interview.
Ontario's electricity system has among the lowest rates of CO2 emissions in North America, with roughly half of the annual supply provided by nuclear power, one-quarter from hydro dams, and one-tenth from wind turbines.
However, Ontario's gas plants have produced a growing amount of electricity in recent years, despite an early report exploring a gas halt by the minister, and that trend will continue if new gas plants are built.
In 2017, gas- and oil-fired generation provided just four percent of Ontario's electricity supply, according to figures from the provincial agency that manages the grid, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO).
By 2022, that figure reached 10.4 percent.
Ontario doesn't need new gas plants to meet the electricity demand, says Bryan Purcell, vice president of policy and programs at The Atmospheric Fund. This agency invests in low-carbon projects in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area.
"We're quite concerned about where Ontario's electric grid is going," said Purcell. "Thankfully, there's still time to adjust course and look at other options."
According to Purcell and Pivnick, those options to avoid gas could include power storage (in which excess generated energy is stored for later use when electricity demand rises), wind and solar projects, or energy efficiency and conservation programs.
Ontario Electricity Transition faces surging demand, GHG targets, and federal regulations, balancing natural gas, renewables, battery storage, and grid reliability while pursuing net-zero by 2035 and cost-effective decarbonization for industry, EVs, and growing populations.
Key Points
Ontario Electricity Transition is the province's shift to a reliable, low-GHG grid via renewables, storage, and policy.
✅ Demand up 75% by 2050; procurement adds 4,000 MW capacity.
✅ Gas use rises to 25% by 2030, challenging GHG goals.
✅ Tripling wind and solar with storage can cut costs and emissions.
Ontario's electricity sector stands at a pivotal crossroads. Once a leader in clean energy, the province now faces the dual challenge of meeting surging demand while adhering to stringent greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets. Recent developments, including the expansion of natural gas infrastructure and proposed federal regulations, have intensified debates about the future of Ontario's energy landscape, as this analysis explains in detail.
Rising Demand and the Need for Expansion
Ontario's electricity demand is projected to increase by 75% by 2050, equivalent to adding four and a half cities the size of Toronto to the grid. This surge is driven by factors such as industrial electrification, population growth, and the transition to electric vehicles. In response, as Ontario confronts a looming shortfall in the coming years, the provincial government has initiated its most ambitious energy procurement plan to date, aiming to secure an additional 4,000 megawatts of capacity by 2030. This includes investments in battery storage and natural gas generation to ensure grid reliability during peak demand periods.
The Role of Natural Gas: A Controversial Bridge
Natural gas has become a cornerstone of Ontario's strategy to meet immediate energy needs. However, this reliance comes with environmental costs. The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) projects that by 2030, natural gas will account for 25% of Ontario's electricity supply, up from 4% in 2017. This shift raises concerns about the province's ability to meet its GHG reduction targets and to embrace clean power in practice.
The expansion of gas-fired plants, including broader plans for new gas capacity, such as the Portlands Energy Centre in Toronto, has sparked public outcry. Environmental groups argue that these expansions could undermine local emissions reduction goals and exacerbate health issues related to air quality. For instance, emissions from the Portlands plant have surged from 188,000 tonnes in 2017 to over 600,000 tonnes in 2021, with projections indicating a potential increase to 1.65 million tonnes if the expansion proceeds as planned.
Federal Regulations and Economic Implications
The federal government's proposed clean electricity regulations aim to achieve a net-zero electricity sector by 2035. However, Ontario's government has expressed concerns that these regulations could impose significant financial burdens. An analysis by the IESO suggests that complying with the new rules would require doubling the province's electricity generation capacity, potentially adding $35 billion in costs by 2050, while other estimates suggest that greening Ontario's grid could cost $400 billion over time. This could result in higher residential electricity bills, ranging from $132 to $168 annually starting in 2033.
Pathways to a Sustainable Future
Experts advocate for a diversified approach to decarbonization that balances environmental goals with economic feasibility. Investments in renewable energy sources, such as new wind and solar resources, along with advancements in energy storage technologies, are seen as critical components of a sustainable energy strategy. Additionally, implementing energy efficiency measures and modernizing grid infrastructure can enhance system resilience and reduce emissions.
The Ontario Clean Air Alliance proposes phasing out gas power by 2035 through a combination of tripling wind and solar capacity and investing in energy efficiency and storage solutions. This approach not only aims to reduce emissions but also offers potential cost savings compared to continued reliance on gas-fired generation.
Ontario's journey toward a decarbonized electricity grid is fraught with challenges, including balancing reliability, clean, affordable electricity, and environmental sustainability. While natural gas currently plays a significant role in meeting the province's energy needs, its long-term viability as a bridge fuel remains contentious. The path forward will require careful consideration of technological innovations, regulatory frameworks, and public engagement to ensure a clean, reliable, and economically viable energy future for all Ontarians.
ITER Nuclear Fusion advances tokamak magnetic confinement, heating deuterium-tritium plasma with superconducting magnets, targeting net energy gain, tritium breeding, and steam-turbine power, while complementing laser inertial confinement milestones for grid-scale electricity and 2025 startup goals.
Key Points
ITER Nuclear Fusion is a tokamak project confining D-T plasma with magnets to achieve net energy gain and clean power.
✅ Tokamak magnetic confinement with high-temp superconducting coils
✅ Deuterium-tritium fuel cycle with on-site tritium breeding
✅ Targets net energy gain and grid-scale, low-carbon electricity
It sounds like the stuff of dreams: a virtually limitless source of energy that doesn’t produce greenhouse gases or radioactive waste. That’s the promise of nuclear fusion, often described as the holy grail of clean energy by proponents, which for decades has been nothing more than a fantasy due to insurmountable technical challenges. But things are heating up in what has turned into a race to create what amounts to an artificial sun here on Earth, one that can provide power for our kettles, cars and light bulbs.
Today’s nuclear power plants create electricity through nuclear fission, in which atoms are split, with next-gen nuclear power exploring smaller, cheaper, safer designs that remain distinct from fusion. Nuclear fusion however, involves combining atomic nuclei to release energy. It’s the same reaction that’s taking place at the Sun’s core. But overcoming the natural repulsion between atomic nuclei and maintaining the right conditions for fusion to occur isn’t straightforward. And doing so in a way that produces more energy than the reaction consumes has been beyond the grasp of the finest minds in physics for decades.
But perhaps not for much longer. Some major technical challenges have been overcome in the past few years and governments around the world have been pouring money into fusion power research as part of a broader green industrial revolution under way in several regions. There are also over 20 private ventures in the UK, US, Europe, China and Australia vying to be the first to make fusion energy production a reality.
“People are saying, ‘If it really is the ultimate solution, let’s find out whether it works or not,’” says Dr Tim Luce, head of science and operation at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), being built in southeast France. ITER is the biggest throw of the fusion dice yet.
Its $22bn (£15.9bn) build cost is being met by the governments of two-thirds of the world’s population, including the EU, the US, China and Russia, at a time when Europe is losing nuclear power and needs energy, and when it’s fired up in 2025 it’ll be the world’s largest fusion reactor. If it works, ITER will transform fusion power from being the stuff of dreams into a viable energy source.
Constructing a nuclear fusion reactor ITER will be a tokamak reactor – thought to be the best hope for fusion power. Inside a tokamak, a gas, often a hydrogen isotope called deuterium, is subjected to intense heat and pressure, forcing electrons out of the atoms. This creates a plasma – a superheated, ionised gas – that has to be contained by intense magnetic fields.
The containment is vital, as no material on Earth could withstand the intense heat (100,000,000°C and above) that the plasma has to reach so that fusion can begin. It’s close to 10 times the heat at the Sun’s core, and temperatures like that are needed in a tokamak because the gravitational pressure within the Sun can’t be recreated.
When atomic nuclei do start to fuse, vast amounts of energy are released. While the experimental reactors currently in operation release that energy as heat, in a fusion reactor power plant, the heat would be used to produce steam that would drive turbines to generate electricity, even as some envision nuclear beyond electricity for industrial heat and fuels.
Tokamaks aren’t the only fusion reactors being tried. Another type of reactor uses lasers to heat and compress a hydrogen fuel to initiate fusion. In August 2021, one such device at the National Ignition Facility, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, generated 1.35 megajoules of energy. This record-breaking figure brings fusion power a step closer to net energy gain, but most hopes are still pinned on tokamak reactors rather than lasers.
In June 2021, China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor maintained a plasma for 101 seconds at 120,000,000°C. Before that, the record was 20 seconds. Ultimately, a fusion reactor would need to sustain the plasma indefinitely – or at least for eight-hour ‘pulses’ during periods of peak electricity demand.
A real game-changer for tokamaks has been the magnets used to produce the magnetic field. “We know how to make magnets that generate a very high magnetic field from copper or other kinds of metal, but you would pay a fortune for the electricity. It wouldn’t be a net energy gain from the plant,” says Luce.
One route for nuclear fusion is to use atoms of deuterium and tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen. They fuse under incredible heat and pressure, and the resulting products release energy as heat
The solution is to use high-temperature, superconducting magnets made from superconducting wire, or ‘tape’, that has no electrical resistance. These magnets can create intense magnetic fields and don’t lose energy as heat.
“High temperature superconductivity has been known about for 35 years. But the manufacturing capability to make tape in the lengths that would be required to make a reasonable fusion coil has just recently been developed,” says Luce. One of ITER’s magnets, the central solenoid, will produce a field of 13 tesla – 280,000 times Earth’s magnetic field.
The inner walls of ITER’s vacuum vessel, where the fusion will occur, will be lined with beryllium, a metal that won’t contaminate the plasma much if they touch. At the bottom is the divertor that will keep the temperature inside the reactor under control.
“The heat load on the divertor can be as large as in a rocket nozzle,” says Luce. “Rocket nozzles work because you can get into orbit within minutes and in space it’s really cold.” In a fusion reactor, a divertor would need to withstand this heat indefinitely and at ITER they’ll be testing one made out of tungsten.
Meanwhile, in the US, the National Spherical Torus Experiment – Upgrade (NSTX-U) fusion reactor will be fired up in the autumn of 2022, while efforts in advanced fission such as a mini-reactor design are also progressing. One of its priorities will be to see whether lining the reactor with lithium helps to keep the plasma stable.
Choosing a fuel Instead of just using deuterium as the fusion fuel, ITER will use deuterium mixed with tritium, another hydrogen isotope. The deuterium-tritium blend offers the best chance of getting significantly more power out than is put in. Proponents of fusion power say one reason the technology is safe is that the fuel needs to be constantly fed into the reactor to keep fusion happening, making a runaway reaction impossible.
Deuterium can be extracted from seawater, so there’s a virtually limitless supply of it. But only 20kg of tritium are thought to exist worldwide, so fusion power plants will have to produce it (ITER will develop technology to ‘breed’ tritium). While some radioactive waste will be produced in a fusion plant, it’ll have a lifetime of around 100 years, rather than the thousands of years from fission.
At the time of writing in September, researchers at the Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor in Oxfordshire were due to start their deuterium-tritium fusion reactions. “JET will help ITER prepare a choice of machine parameters to optimise the fusion power,” says Dr Joelle Mailloux, one of the scientific programme leaders at JET. These parameters will include finding the best combination of deuterium and tritium, and establishing how the current is increased in the magnets before fusion starts.
The groundwork laid down at JET should accelerate ITER’s efforts to accomplish net energy gain. ITER will produce ‘first plasma’ in December 2025 and be cranked up to full power over the following decade. Its plasma temperature will reach 150,000,000°C and its target is to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power for every 50 megawatts of input heating power.
“If ITER is successful, it’ll eliminate most, if not all, doubts about the science and liberate money for technology development,” says Luce. That technology development will be demonstration fusion power plants that actually produce electricity, where advanced reactors can build on decades of expertise. “ITER is opening the door and saying, yeah, this works – the science is there.”
Ontario Global Adjustment Supreme Court Appeal spotlights a constitutional challenge to Ontario's electricity charge, pitting National Steel Car against the IESO over regulatory charge vs tax, procurement policy, and renewable energy feed-in tariff contracts.
Key Points
An SCC leave bid on whether Ontario's global adjustment is a valid regulatory charge or an unconstitutional tax.
✅ Appeals Court revived case for full record review
✅ Dispute centers on regulatory charge vs tax classification
✅ FIT renewables contracts and procurement policies at issue
The Ontario government wants the Supreme Court of Canada to weigh in on a constitutional challenge being brought against a large provincial electricity charge, a case the province claims raises issues of national importance.
Ontario’s attorney general and its Independent Electricity System Operator applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court in January, according to the court’s website.
The province is trying to appeal a Court of Appeal decision reinstating the challenge from November that said a legal challenge by Hamilton, Ont.-based National Steel Car Ltd. should be sent back to a lower-court for a full hearing.
Court reinstates constitutional challenge to Ontario's hefty ‘global adjustment’ electricity charge National Steel Car appealing decision in legal challenge of Ontario electricity fee it calls an unconstitutional tax Doug Ford’s cancellation of green energy deals costs Ontario taxpayers $231 million National Steel Car launched its legal challenge in 2017, with the maker of steel rail cars claiming the province’s global adjustment electricity charge was a tax intended to fund certain post-financial-crisis policy goals. Since it is allegedly a tax, and one not imposed by the provincial legislature, the company’s argument is the global adjustment is unconstitutional, and also in breach of a provincial law requiring a referendum for new taxes.
The global adjustment mostly bridges the gap between the province’s hourly electricity price and the price guaranteed under contracts and regulated rates with power generators. It also helps cover the cost of building new electricity infrastructure and providing conservation programs, but the fee now makes up most of the commodity portion of a household power bill in the province.
Ontario argued the global adjustment is a valid regulatory charge, and moved to have National Steel Car’s challenge thrown out. An Ontario Superior Court judge agreed, and dismissed the challenge in 2018, saying it was “plain, obvious and beyond doubt” it could not succeed. However, an appeals court judge disagreed, writing in a decision last November that the “merits should not have been determined on a pleadings motion and without the development of a full record.”
In filings made to the Supreme Court, both the IESO and Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General argued their proposed appeals raise “issues of national and public importance,” such as whether incorporating environmental and social policy goals in procurement could turn attempts by a public body to recover costs into an unconstitutional tax.
Most applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court are dismissed, but the Ontario government claims the court’s guidance is required in this case, as it could lead to questions being raised about other fees or charges, such as money raised from fishing licences.
“A failure to dispose of this claim at the pleadings stage may well result in such uncertainty that public authorities across Canada decline to incorporate the kind of environmental and social policy goals objected to in this case into the decisions they make about how to spend funds raised from regulatory charges,” the filing from the attorney general states. “Alternatively, it may induce governments not to engage in cost recovery in connection with publicly supplied goods and services, which can otherwise be sound public policy.”
The government has so far had to pay National Steel Car $250,000 in legal costs “to avoid responding to the credible claim that the Global Adjustment is an unconstitutional tax,” said David Trafford of Morse Shannon LLP, one of National Steel Car’s lawyers.
“The application for leave to appeal is the next step in this effort to avoid having to respond to the case on the merits,” Trafford added in an email.
The application for leave to appeal is the next step in this effort to avoid having to respond to the case on the merits
David Trafford of Morse Shannon, one of National Steel Car’s lawyers
National Steel Car has particularly taken issue with the part of the global adjustment that funded contracts for renewable energy under a “feed-in tariff” program, or FIT, which the company called “the main culprit behind the dramatic price increases for electricity.”
The FIT program has been ended, but contracts awarded under it remain in place and form part of the global adjustment. Ontario’s auditor general estimated in 2015 that electricity consumers would pay $9.2 billion more for renewable energy under the government’s guaranteed-price program, a figure that later featured in a dispute between the auditor and the electricity regulator that drew political attention.
National Steel Car said its global adjustment costs grew from $207,260 in 2008 to almost $3.4 million in 2016, reflecting how high electricity rates have pressured manufacturers, to almost $3.4 million in 2016. For 2018, there was approximately $11.2 billion in global adjustment collected, according to the IESO’s reporting.
A spokesperson for the IESO said it “is not in a position to comment” because the case is still before the courts.
Electricity prices have been an ongoing problem for both Ontario consumers and politicians, which the previous Liberal government tried to address in 2017 by, among other things, refinancing global-adjustment costs through the Fair Hydro Plan and other measures.
Since National Steel Car filed its lawsuits, though, the Liberals lost power in the province and were succeeded in 2018 by Premier Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservatives, who made changes to the previous government’s power policies, including legislation to lower electricity rates introduced early in their mandate.
The province has also pursued interprovincial power arrangements, including building on an electricity deal with Quebec as part of its broader energy strategy.
“The present government of Ontario does not agree with the former government’s electricity procurement program, which ceased awarding new contracts in 2016,” Ontario’s attorney general said in a filing. “However, Ontario submits that (the lower-court judge) was correct in holding that it does not give rise to a claim susceptible to being remedied by the courts.”
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
