Customers may pay price for utility's violations

Hydro One CEO Salary shapes debate on Ontario electricity costs, executive compensation, sunshine list transparency, and public disclosure rules, as officials argue pay is not driving planned hydro rate cuts for consumers.

Key Points

Hydro One CEO pay disclosed in public filings, central to debates on Ontario electricity rates and transparency.

✅ 2016 compensation: $4.5M (salary + bonuses)

✅ Excluded from Ontario's sunshine list after privatization

✅ Government says pay won't affect planned hydro rate cuts

The $4.5 million in pay received by Hydro One's CEO is not a factor in the government's plan to cut electricity costs for consumers, an Ontario cabinet minister said Thursday amid opposition concerns about the executive's compensation and wider sector pressures such as Manitoba Hydro's rising debt in other provinces.

Treasury Board President Liz Sandals made her comments on the eve of the release of the province's so-called sunshine list.

The annual disclosure of public-sector salaries over $100,000 will be released Friday, but Hydro One salaries such as that of company boss Mayo Schmidt won't be on it.Though the government still owns most of Hydro One — 30 per cent has been sold — the company is required to follow the financial disclosure rules of publicly traded companies, which means disclosing the salaries of its CEO, CFO and next three highest-paid executives, and financial results such as a Q2 profit decline in filings.

New filings show that Schmidt was paid $4.5 million in 2016 — an $850,000 salary plus bonuses — and those top five executives were paid a total of about $11.7 million. 

"Clearly that's a very large amount," said Sandals. Sandals wouldn't say whether or not she thought the pay was appropriate at a time when the government is trying to reduce system costs and cut people's hydro bills.

Mayo Schmidt, President & CEO of Hydro One Limited and Hydro One Inc. (Hydro One )

But she suggested the CEO's salary was not a factor in efforts to bring down hydro prices, even as Hydro One shares fell after a leadership shakeup in a later period. "The CEO salary is not part of the equation of will 'we be able to make the cut,"' she said. "Regardless of what those salaries are, we will make a 25-per-cent-off cut." The cut coming this summer is actually an average of 17 per cent -- the 25-per-cent figure factors in an earlier eight-per-cent rebate.

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath, who has proposed to make hydro public again in Ontario, said the executive salaries are relevant to cutting hydro costs.

"All of this is cost of operating the electricity system, it's part of the operating of Hydro One and so of course those increased salaries are going to impact the cost of our electricity," she said.

Schmidt was appointed Aug. 31, 2015, and in the last four months of that year earned $1.3 million, but the former CEO was paid $745,000 in 2014. About 3,800 workers were paid over $100,000 that year, none of whom will be on the sunshine list this year.

Progressive Conservative energy critic Todd Smith has a private member's bill that would put Hydro One salaries back on the list, amid investor concerns about Hydro One that cite too many unknowns.

"The Wynne Liberals don't want the people of Ontario to know that their rates have helped create a new millionaire's club at Hydro One," Smith said. "Hydro One is still under the majority ownership of the public, but Premier Kathleen Wynne has removed these salaries from the public's watchful eye."

The previous sunshine list showed 115,431 people were earning more than $100,000 — an increase of nearly 4,000 people despite the fact 3,774 Hydro One workers were not on the list for the first time.

Tom Mitchell, the former CEO at Ontario Power Generation who resigned last summer, topped the 2015 list at $1.59 million.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

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.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Electricity Price Hikes spotlight grid reliability, renewable transition, coal phase-out, and energy poverty, as policy shifts and investor reports warn of rate increases, biomass trade-offs, and sustainability challenges impacting households and businesses.

Key Points

Projected power bill hikes from market reforms, renewables, coal phase-out, and reliability costs in Alberta.

✅ Investor report projects 3x-7x bills and $50B market transition costs

✅ Policy missteps cited in Ontario, Germany, Australia price spikes

✅ Debate: retain coal vs. speed renewables, storage, and grid upgrades

Since when did electricity become a scarce resource?

I thought all the talk about greening the grid was about having renewable, sustainable, less polluting options to fulfill our growing need for power. Yet, increasingly, we are faced with news stories that indicate using power is bad in and of itself, even as flat electricity demand worries utilities.

The implication, I guess, is that we should be using less of it. But, I don’t want to use less electricity. I want to be able to watch TV, turn my lights on when the sun sets at 4 p.m. in the winter, keep my food cold and power my devices.

We once had a consensus that a reliable supply of power was essential to a growing economy and a high quality of life, a point underscored by brownout risks in U.S. markets.

I’m beginning to wonder if we still have that consensus.

And more importantly, if our decision makers have determined electricity is a vice as opposed to an essential of life – as debates over Alberta electricity policy suggest – you know what is going to happen next. Prices are going to rise, forcing all of us to use less.

How much would it hurt your bottom line if your electricity bill went up three-fold? How about seven-fold? That is the grim picture that Todd Beasley painted for us on Tuesday’s show.

Last week, he launched a campaign on behalf of Albertans for Sustainable Electricity, called Stop the Shock. He shared the results of an internal investor report that concluded Alberta’s power market overhaul would cost an estimated $50 billion to implement and could result in a three to seven-fold increase in electricity bills.

Now, my typical power bill averages $70 a month. That would be like having it grow to $210 a month, or just over $2,500 a year. If it’s a seven-fold increase that would be more like $5,000 a year. That may be manageable for some families, but I can think of a lot of things I’d rather do with $5,000 than pay more to keep my fridge running so my food doesn’t spoil.

For low-income families that would be a real hardship.

Beasley said Ontario’s inept handling of its electricity market and the phase-out of coal power resulted in price spikes that left more than 70,000 individuals facing energy poverty.

Germany and Australia realized they made the same mistake and are returning some electricity to coal.

Beasley shared a long list of Canadian firms – including our own Canadian Pension Plan – that are investing in coal development around the world. Meanwhile, Canadian governments remain in a mad rush to phase it out here. That’s not the only hypocrisy.

Rupert Darwall, author of Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex, revealed in a recent column what he calls “the scandal at the heart of the EU’s renewable policies.”

Turns out most of their expansion in renewable energy has come from biomass in the form of wood. Not only does burning wood produce more CO2, it also eliminates carbon sinks.

To meet the EU’s 2030 target would require cutting down trees equivalent to the combined harvest in Canada and the United States. As he puts it, “Whichever way you look at it, burning the world’s carbon sinks to meet the EU’s arbitrary renewable energy targets is environmentally insane.”

Beasley’s group is trying to bring some sanity back to the discussion. The goal should be to move to a greener grid while maintaining abundant, reliable and cheap power, and examples like Texas grid improvements show practical steps. He thinks to achieve all these goals, coal should remain part of the mix. What do you think?

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Assault on Kyiv's Power Grid intensifies as missiles and drones strike critical energy infrastructure. Ukraine's air defenses intercept threats, yet blackouts, heating risks, and civilian systems damage mount amid escalating winter conditions.

Key Points

Missile and drone strikes on Kyiv's power grid to cripple infrastructure, cause blackouts, and pressure civilians.

✅ Targets power plants, substations, and transmission lines

✅ Air defenses intercept many missiles and drones

✅ Blackouts jeopardize heating, safety, and communications

In a troubling escalation of hostilities, Russian forces launched a relentless five-hour assault on Kyiv, employing missiles and drones to target critical infrastructure, particularly Ukraine's power grid. This attack not only highlights the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine but also underscores the vulnerability of essential services, as seen in power outages in western Ukraine in recent weeks, in the face of military aggression.

The Nature of the Attack

The assault began early in the morning and continued for several hours, with air raid sirens ringing out across the capital as residents were urged to seek shelter. Eyewitnesses reported a barrage of missile strikes, along with the ominous whir of drones overhead. The Ukrainian military responded with its air defense systems, successfully intercepting a number of the incoming threats, but several strikes still managed to penetrate the defenses.

One of the most alarming aspects of this attack was its focus on Ukraine's energy infrastructure. Critical power facilities were hit, resulting in significant disruptions to electricity supply across Kyiv and surrounding regions. The attacks not only caused immediate outages but also threatened to complicate efforts to keep the lights on in the aftermath.

Impacts on Civilians and Infrastructure

The consequences of the missile and drone strikes were felt immediately by residents. Many found themselves without power, leading to disruptions in heating, lighting, and communications. With winter approaching, the implications of such outages become even more serious, as keeping the lights on this winter becomes harder while temperatures drop and the demand for heating increases.

Emergency services were quickly mobilized to assess the damage and begin repairs, but the scale of the attack posed significant challenges. In addition to the direct damage to power facilities, the strikes created a climate of fear and uncertainty among civilians, even as many explore new energy solutions to endure blackouts.

Strategic Objectives Behind the Assault

Military analysts suggest that targeting Ukraine's energy infrastructure is a calculated strategy by Russian forces. By crippling the power grid, the intention may be to sow chaos and undermine public morale, forcing the government to divert resources to emergency responses rather than frontline defenses. This tactic has been employed previously, with significant ramifications for civilian life and national stability.

Moreover, as winter approaches, the vulnerability of Ukraine’s energy systems becomes even more pronounced, with analysts warning that winter looms over the battlefront for civilians and troops alike. With many civilians relying on electric heating and other essential services, an attack on the power grid can have devastating effects on public health and safety. The psychological impact of such assaults can also contribute to a sense of hopelessness among the population, potentially influencing public sentiment regarding the war.

International Response and Solidarity

The international community has responded with concern to the recent escalation in attacks. Ukrainian officials have called for increased military support and defensive measures to protect critical infrastructure from future assaults, amid policy shifts such as the U.S. ending support for grid restoration that complicate planning. Many countries have expressed solidarity with Ukraine, reiterating their commitment to support the nation as it navigates the complexities of this ongoing conflict.

In addition to military assistance, humanitarian aid is also critical, and instances of solidarity such as Ukraine helping Spain amid blackouts demonstrate shared resilience. As the situation continues to evolve, many organizations are working to provide relief to those affected by the attacks, offering resources such as food, shelter, and medical assistance. The focus remains not only on immediate recovery efforts but also on long-term strategies to bolster Ukraine’s resilience against future attacks.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Duration Portfolio Energy Storage aligns layered peak demand with right-sized batteries, enabling peak shaving, gas peaker replacement, and solar-plus-storage synergy while improving grid flexibility, reliability, and T&D deferral through two- to four-hour battery durations.

Key Points

An approach that layers battery durations to match peaks, cut costs, replace peakers, and boost grid reliability.

✅ Layers 2- to 4-hour batteries by peak duration

✅ Enables solar-plus-storage and peak shaving

✅ Cuts T&D upgrades, emissions, and fuel costs

The debate over energy storage replacing gas-fired peakers has raged for years, but a new approach that shifts the terms of the argument could lead to an acceleration of storage deployments.

Rather than looking at peak demand as a single mountainous peak, some analysts now advocate a layered approach that allows energy storage to better match peak needs and complement ongoing efforts to improve solar and wind power across the grid.

"You don’t have to have batteries that run to infinity."

Some developers of solar-plus-storage projects, bolstered by cheap batteries, say they can already compete head-to-head with gas-fired peakers. "I can beat a gas peaker anywhere in the country today with a solar-plus-storage power plant," Tom Buttgenbach, president and CEO of developer 8minutenergy Renewables, recently told S&P Global.

Customers are very busy these days and rebate programs need to fit the speed of their life. Participation should be quick, easy, and accessible anywhere.

Others disagree. Storage is not disruptive for generation, but will be disruptive for transmission and distribution, Kris Zadlo, executive vice president and chief development officer at Invenergy, told the audience at a Bloomberg New Energy Finance conference last spring. Invenergy, like many renewable power developers, develops generation, energy storage and transmission projects.

But there is another path that avoids the pitfalls of positions on either end of the all-or-none approach. "Do the analysis of the need itself," Ray Hohenstein, market applications director at Fluence, told Utility Dive. If the need is only two hours in duration, it may be best served by a two-hour battery. "You don’t have to have batteries that run to infinity."

Storage vs. fossil fuel peakers

Energy storage has several benefits over traditional fossil fuel peaking plants, Hohenstein said. It is instantaneous, it has no emissions and requires no fuel, and has limited infrastructure needs. It can also help the grid absorb higher levels of renewable generation by soaking up excess output, such as solar power at noon, and many planned storage additions will be paired with solar in the next few years. But the one thing energy storage cannot do, he said, is provide limitless energy.

So, instead of looking at replacing an individual peaker, Hohenstein advocated a "duration portfolio" approach that uses energy storage to shave peak load.

If the need is for 150 MW of resources that will never need to run for more than two hours at a time, then a battery is "quite cheap," significantly less than a four or eight-hour battery, said Hohenstein. "If you fill up your peak by duration layer, it could be more cost effective."

NREL research driver

Fluence’s approach is informed by research by Paul Denholm and Robert Margolis at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), released last spring.

The NREL researchers looked at the California market where they said 11 GW of fossil fuel capacity is expected to be retired by 2029 because of new once-through-cooling requirements that are taking effect. A lot of that capacity is peaking capacity and, according to NREL’s analysis, a large fraction could be replaced with four-hour energy storage, assuming continued storage cost reductions and growth in solar installations.

The key in NREL’s research was the level of solar power penetration. There is a "synergistic" relationship between solar penetration and storage deployment, the researchers wrote, and other studies suggest wind and solar could meet 80% of U.S. demand as these trends continue.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

FirstEnergy Nuclear Plant Closures threaten Ohio and Pennsylvania jobs, tax revenue, and grid stability, as Nuclear Matters and Brattle Group warn of higher carbon emissions and market pressures from PJM and cheap natural gas.

Key Points

Planned shutdowns of Davis-Besse, Perry, and Beaver Valley, with regional economic and carbon impacts.

✅ Over 3,000 direct jobs and local tax revenue at risk

✅ Emissions may rise until renewables scale, possibly into 2034

✅ Debate over subsidies, market design, and PJM capacity rules

A national nuclear lobby wants to remind people what's at stake for Ohio and Pennsylvania if FirstEnergy Solutions follows through with plans to shut down three nuclear plants over the next three years, including its Davis-Besse nuclear plant east of Toledo.

A report issued Monday by Nuclear Matters largely echoes concerns raised by FES, a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp., and other supporters of nuclear power about economic and environmental hardships and brownout risks that will likely result from the planned closures.

Along with Davis-Besse, Perry nuclear plant east of Cleveland and the twin-reactor Beaver Valley nuclear complex west of Pittsburgh are slated to close.

#google#

"If these plants close, the livelihoods of thousands of Ohio and Pennsylvania residents will disappear. The over 3,000 highly skilled individuals directly employed by these sites will leave to seek employment at other facilities still operating around the country," Lonnie Stephenson, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers president, said in a statement distributed by Nuclear Matters. Mr. Stephenson also serves on the Nuclear Matters advocacy council.

This new report and others like it are part of an extensive campaign by nuclear energy advocates to court state and federal legislators one more time for tens of millions of dollars of financial support or at least legislation that better suits the nuclear industry. Critics allege such pleas amount to a request for massive government bailouts, arguing that deregulated electricity markets should not subsidize nuclear.

The latest report was prepared for Nuclear Matters by the Brattle Group, a firm that specializes in analyzing economic, finance, and regulatory issues for corporations, law firms, and governments.

"These announced retirements create a real urgency to learn what would happen if these plants are lost," Dean Murphy, the Brattle report's lead author, said.

More than 3,000 jobs would be lost, as would millions of dollars in tax revenue. It also could take as long as 2034 for the region's climate-altering carbon emissions to be brought back down to existing levels, based on current growth projections for solar- and wind-powered projects, and initiatives such as ending coal by 2032 by some utilities, Mr. Murphy said.

His group's report only takes into account nuclear plant operations, though. Many of those who oppose nuclear power have long pointed out that mining uranium for nuclear plant fuel generates substantial emissions, as does the process of producing steel cladding for fuel bundles and the enrichment-production of that fuel. Still, nuclear has ranked among the better performers in reports that have taken such a broader look at overall emissions.

FES has accused the regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, of creating market conditions that favor natural gas and, thus, make it almost impossible for nuclear to compete throughout its 13-state region, a debate intensified by proposed electricity pricing changes at the federal level.

PJM has strongly denied those accusations, and has said it anticipates no shortfalls in energy distribution if those nuclear plants close prematurely, even as a recent FERC decision on grid policy drew industry criticism.

FES, citing massive losses, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The target dates for closures of the FES properties are May 31, 2020 for Davis-Besse; May 31, 2021 for Perry and Beaver Valley Unit 1, and Oct. 31, 2021 for Beaver Valley Unit 2.

In addition to the three FES sites, the report includes information about the Three Mile Island Unit 1 plant near Harrisburg, Pa., which Chicago-based Exelon Generation Corp. has previously announced will be shut down in 2019. That plant and others are experiencing similar difficulties the FES plants face by competing in a market radically changed by record-low natural gas prices.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News