Capacity of China's straw-fueled power plants reaches 1.2 million kilowatts

Fort Frances Microgrid aims to boost reliability in Ontario with grid-connected and island modes, Siemens feasibility study, renewable energy integration, EV charging expansion, and resilience modeled after First Nations projects and regional biomass initiatives.

Key Points

A community microgrid in Fort Frances enabling grid and island modes to improve reliability and integrate renewables.

✅ Siemens-led feasibility via FedNor funding

✅ Grid-connected or islanded for outage resilience

✅ Integrates renewables, EV charging, and industry growth

When the power goes out in Fort Frances, Ont., the community may be left in the dark for hours.

The hydro system's unreliability — caused by its location on the provincial power grid — has prompted the town to seek a creative solution: its own self-contained electricity grid with its own source of power, known as a microgrid. 

Located more than 340 kilometres west of Thunder Bay, Ont., on the border of Minnesota, near the Great Northern Transmission Line corridor, Fort Frances gets its power from a single supply point on Ontario's grid. 

"Sometimes, it's inevitable that we have to have like a six- to eight-hour power outage while equipment is being worked on, and that is no longer acceptable to many of our customers," said Joerg Ruppenstein, president and chief executive officer of Fort Frances Power Corporation.

While Ontario's electrical grid serves the entire province, and national efforts explore macrogrids, a microgrid is contained within a community. Fort Frances hopes to develop an integrated, community-based electric microgrid system that can operate in two modes:

• Grid-connected mode, which means it's connected to the provincial grid and informed by western grid planning approaches
• Island mode, which means it's disconnected from the provincial grid and operates independently

The ability to switch between modes allows flexibility. If a storm knocks down a line, the community will still have power.

The town has been given grant funding from the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario (FedNor), echoing smart grid funding in Sault Ste. Marie initiatives, for the project. On Monday night, council voted to grant a request for proposal to Siemens Canada Limited to conduct a feasibility study into a microgrid system.

The study, anticipated to be completed by the end of 2023 or early 2024, will assess what an integrated community-based microgrid system could look like in the town of just over 7,000 people, said Faisal Anwar, chief administrative officer of Fort Frances. A timeline for construction will be determined after that. 

The community is still reeling from the closure of the Resolute Forest Products pulp and paper mill in 2014 and faces a declining population, said Ruppenstein. It's hoped the microgrid system will help attract new industry to replace those lost workers and jobs, drawing on Manitoba's hydro experience as a model.

This gives the town a competitive advantage.

"If we were conceivably to attract a larger industrial player that would consume a considerable amount of energy, it would result in reduced rates for everyone…we're the only utility really in Ontario that can offer that model," Ruppenstein said.

The project can also incorporate renewable energy like solar or wind power, as seen in B.C.'s clean energy shift efforts, into the microgrid system, and support the growth of electric vehicles, he said. Many residents fill their gas tanks in Minnesota because it's cheaper, but Fort Frances has the potential to become a hub for electric vehicle charging.

A few remote First Nations have recently switched to microgrid systems fuelled by green energy, including Gull Bay First Nation and Fort Severn First Nation. These are communities that have historically relied on diesel fuel either flown in, which is incredibly expensive, or transported via ice roads, which are seeing shorter seasons each year.

Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson was in Thunder Bay, Ont., to announce $35 million for a biomass generation facility in Whitesand First Nation, complementing federal funding for the Manitoba-Saskatchewan transmission line elsewhere in the region.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

NYSERDA Offshore Wind Data initiative funds geophysical and geotechnical surveys, seabed and soil studies on New York's shelf to accelerate siting, optimize foundation design, reduce costs, and advance clean energy deployment.

Key Points

State funding to support surveys and soil studies guiding offshore wind siting, design, and cost reduction.

✅ Up to $5.5M for geophysical and geotechnical data collection

✅ Focus on seabed soils, shelf geology, and foundation design inputs

✅ Accelerates siting, reduces risk, and lowers offshore wind costs

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) is investing up to $5.5 million for the collection of geophysical and geotechnical data to determine future offshore wind development sites.

The funding is to look at seabed soil and geological data for the preliminary design and installation requirements for future offshore wind projects. Its part of N.Y. Gov. Andrew Cuomos plan to develop 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind energy by 2035.

Todays announcement is another step in Governor Cuomos steadfast march to achieving 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind by 2035, putting New York in a clear national leadership position when it comes to advancing this new industry through large-scale energy projects across the state. The surveys NYSERDA will be funding under this solicitation will expand the offshore wind industrys access to geophysical and geotechnical data that will provide the foundation for future offshore wind development in these areas, and accelerate project development while driving down costs, NYSERDA President and CEO Alicia Barton said.

NYSERDA will select one or more contractors to do the investigations, while recent DOE wind energy awards support complementary research, and develop a model for describing geophysical and geotechnical conditions. NYSERDA will also select a contractor to support project management and host the data that is collected. The submission deadline is Jan. 21, 2020.

Todays announcement builds on the data collected in a Geotechnical and Geophysical Desktop Study also released today, which includes information on the middle continental shelf off the shore of New York and New Jersey, where BOEM lease requests are shaping activity, creating a regional overview of the seafloor and sub-seafloor environment as it relates to offshore wind development.

Strong knowledge of environmental conditions and factors, including seabed soil conditions, are essential for the installation of offshore projects, such as Long Island proposals, but only a limited amount of soil sampling and testing has been undertaken to date.

The collection of geophysical and geotechnical data from areas off of New Yorks Atlantic coast is yet another demonstration of New Yorks leadership promoting the responsible development of offshore wind. The data generated by this initiative will ultimately lead to better projects, lower cost, and enhanced safety. New York is leading the way to a clean energy future, as the state finalizes renewable project contracts that expand capacity, and relying on data collection and sound science to get us there, New York Offshore Wind Alliance Director Joe Martens said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

IESO Fictitious Demand Error inflated HOEP in the Ontario electricity market, after embedded generation was mis-modeled; the OEB says double-counted load lifted wholesale prices and shifted costs via the Global Adjustment.

Key Points

An IESO modeling flaw that double-counted load, inflating HOEP and charges in Ontario's wholesale market.

✅ Double-counted unmetered load from embedded generation

✅ Inflated HOEP; shifted costs via Global Adjustment

✅ OEB flagged transparency; exporters paid more

For almost a year, the operator of Ontario’s electricity system erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing prices to spike and hundreds of millions of dollars in extra charges to consumers, according to the provincial energy regulator.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) also failed to tell anyone about the error once it noticed and fixed it.

The error likely added between $450 million and $560 million to hourly rates and other charges before it was fixed in April 2017, according to a report released this month by the Ontario Energy Board’s Market Surveillance Panel.

It did this by adding as much as 220 MW of “fictitious demand” to the market starting in May 2016, when the IESO started paying consumers who reduced their demand for power during peak periods. This involved the integration of small-scale embedded generation (largely made up of solar) into its wholesale model for the first time.

The mistake assumed maximum consumption at such sites without meters, and double-counted that consumption.

The OEB said the mistake particularly hurt exporters and some end-users, who did not benefit from a related reduction of a global adjustment rate applicable to other customers.

“The most direct impact of the increase in HOEP (Hourly Ontario Energy Price) was felt by Ontario consumers and exporters of electricity, who paid an artificially high HOEP, to the benefit of generators and importers,” the OEB said.

The mix-up did not result in an equivalent increase in total system costs, because changes to the HOEP are offset by inverse changes to a electricity cost allocation mechanism such as the Global Adjustment rate, the OEB noted.

A chart from the OEB's report shows the time of day when fictitious demand was added to the system, and its influence on hourly rates.

Peak time spikes
The OEB said that the fictitious demand “regularly inflated” the hourly price of energy and other costs calculated as a direct function of it.

For almost a year, Ontario's electricity system operator @IESO_Tweets erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing price spikes and hundreds of millions in charges to consumers, @OntEnergyBoard says. @5thEstate reports.

It estimated the average increase to the HOEP was as much as $4.50/MWh, but that price spikes, compounded by scheduled OEB rate changes, would have been much higher during busier times, such as the mid-morning and early evening.

“In times of tight supply, the addition of fictitious demand often had a dramatic inflationary impact on the HOEP,” the report said.

That meant on one summer evening in 2016 the hourly rate jumped to $1,619/MWh, it said, which was the fourth highest in the history of the Ontario wholesale electricity market.

“Additional demand is met by scheduling increasingly expensive supply, thus increasing the market price. In instances where supply is tight and the supply stack is steep, small increases in demand can cause significant increases in the market price.

The OEB questioned why, as of September this year, the IESO had failed to notify its customers or the broader public, amid a broader auditor-regulator dispute that drew political attention, about the mistake and its effect on prices.

“It's time for greater transparency on where electricity costs are really coming from,” said Sarah Buchanan, clean energy program manager at Environmental Defence.

“Ontario will be making big decisions in the coming years about whether to keep our electricity grid clean, or burn more fossil fuels to keep the lights on,” she added. “These decisions need to be informed by the best possible evidence, and that can't happen if critical information is hidden.”

In a response to the OEB report on Monday, the IESO said its own initial analysis found that the error likely pushed wholesale electricity payments up by $225 million. That calculation assumed that the higher prices would have changed consumer behaviour, while upcoming electricity auctions were cited as a way to lower costs, it said.

In response to questions, a spokesperson said residential and small commercial consumers would have saved $11 million in electricity costs over the 11-month period, even as a typical bill increase loomed province-wide, while larger consumers would have paid an extra $14 million.

That is because residential and small commercial customers pay some costs via time-of-use rates, including a temporary recovery rate framework, the IESO said, while larger customers pay them in a way that reflects their share of overall electricity use during the five highest demand hours of the year.

The IESO said it could not compensate those that had paid too much, given the complexity of the system, and that the modelling error did not have a significant impact on ratepayers.

While acknowledging the effects of the mistake would vary among its customers, the IESO said the net market impact was less than $10 million, amid ongoing legislation to lower electricity rates in Ontario.

It said it would improve testing of its processes prior to deployment and agreed to publicly disclose errors that significantly affect the wholesale market in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Spring Storm Grid Risks highlight tornado outbreaks, flooding, power outages, and transmission disruptions, with NOAA flood outlooks, coal and barge delays, vulnerable nuclear sites, and distribution line damage demanding resilience, reliability, and emergency preparedness.

Key Points

Spring Storm Grid Risks show how tornadoes and floods disrupt power systems, fuel transport, and plants guide resilience.

✅ Tornado outbreaks and derechos damage distribution and transmission

✅ Flooding drives outages via treefall, substation and plant inundation

✅ Fuel logistics disrupted: rail coal, river barges, road access

The storm and tornado outbreak that recently barreled through the US Midwest, South and Mid-Atlantic was a devastating reminder of how much danger spring can deliver, despite it being the “milder” season compared to summer and winter.  

Danger season is approaching, and the country is starting to see the impacts. 

The event killed at least 32 people across seven states. The National Weather Service is still tallying up the number of confirmed tornadoes, which has already passed 100. Communities coping with tragedy are assessing the damage, which so far includes at least 72 destroyed homes in one Tennessee county alone, and dozens more homes elsewhere. 

On Saturday, April 1–the day after the storm struck–there were 1.1 million US utility customers without power, even as EIA reported a January power generation surge earlier in the year. On Monday morning, April 3, there were still more than 80,000 customers in the dark, according to PowerOutage.us. The storm system brought disruptions to both distribution grids–those networks of local power lines you generally see running overhead to buildings–as well as the larger transmission grid in the Midwest, which is far less common than distribution-level issues. 

While we don’t yet have a lot of granular details about this latest storm’s grid impacts, recent shifts in demand like New York City's pandemic power patterns show how operating conditions evolve, and it’s worth going through what else the country might be in for this spring, as well as in future springs. Moreover, there are steps policymakers can take to prepare for these spring weather phenomena and bolster the reliability and resilience of the US power system. 

Heightened flood risk 
The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said in a recent outlook that about 44 percent of the United States is at risk of floods this spring, equating to about 146 million people. This includes most of the eastern half of the country, the federal agency said. 

The agency also sees “major” flood risk potential in some parts of the Upper Mississippi River Basin, and relatively higher risk in the Sierra Nevada region, due in part to a historic snowpack in California.  

Multiple components of the power system can be affected by spring floods. 

Power lines – Floods can saturate soil and make trees more likely to uproot and fall onto power lines. This has been contributing to power outages during California’s recent heavy storms–called atmospheric rivers–that started over the winter. In other regions, soil moisture has even been used as a predictor of where power outages will occur due to hurricanes, so that utility companies are better prepared to send line repair crews to the right areas. Hurricanes are primarily a summer and fall phenomenon, and summer also brings grid stress from air conditioning demand in many states, so for now, during spring, they are less of a concern.  

Fuel transport – Spring floods can hinder the transportation of fuels like coal. While it is a heavily polluting fossil fuel that is set to continue declining as a fuel source for US electricity generation, with the EIA summer outlook for wind and solar pointing to further shifts, coal still accounted for roughly 20 percent of the country’s generation in 2022.   

About 70 percent of US coal is transported at least part of the way by trains. The rail infrastructure to transport coal from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming–the country’s primary coal source–was proven to be vulnerable to extreme floods in the spring of 2011, and even more extreme floods in the spring of 2019. The 2019 floods’ disruptions of coal shipments to power plants via rail persisted for months and into the summertime, also affecting river shipments of coal by barge. In June 2019, hundreds of barges were stalled in the Mississippi River, through which millions of tons of the fossil fuel are normally transported. 

Power plants – Power plants themselves can also be at risk of flooding, since most of them are sited near a source of water that is used to create steam to spin the plants’ turbines, and conversely, low water levels can constrain hydropower as seen in Western Canada hydropower drought during recent reservoir shortfalls. Most US fossil fuel generating capacity from sources like methane gas, which recently set natural gas power records across the grid, and coal utilizes steam to generate electricity. 

However, much of the attention paid to the flood risk of power plant sites has centered on nuclear plants, a key source of low-carbon electricity discussed in IAEA low-carbon electricity lessons that also require a water source for the creation of steam, as well as for keeping the plant cool in an emergency. To name a notable flood example here in the United States–both visually and substantively–in 2011, the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant in Nebraska was completely surrounded by water due to late-spring flooding along the Missouri River. This sparked a lot of concerns because it was just a few months after the March 2011 meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan. The public was thankfully not harmed by the Nebraska incident, but this was unfortunately not an isolated incident in terms of flood risks posed to the US nuclear power fleet. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Manitoba Hydro Integrated Resource Plan outlines electrification-driven demand growth, clean electricity needs, wind generation, energy efficiency, hydropower strengths, and net-zero policy impacts, guiding investments to expand capacity and decarbonize Manitoba's grid.

Key Points

Manitoba Hydro IRP forecasting 2.5x demand, clean power needs, and capacity additions via wind and energy efficiency.

✅ Projects electricity demand could more than double within 20 years.

✅ Leverages 97% hydro supply; adds wind generation and efficiency.

✅ Positions for net-zero, electrification, and new capacity by the 2030s.

Electrical demand in Manitoba could more than double in the next 20 years, a trend echoed by BC Hydro's call for power in response to electrification, according to a new report from Manitoba Hydro.

On Tuesday, the Crown corporation released its first-ever Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), which not only predicts a significant increase in electrical demand, but also that new sources of energy, and a potential need for new power generation, could be needed in the next decade.

“Right now, what [our customers] are telling us, with the climate change objectives, with federal policy, provincial policies, is they see using electricity much more in the future than they do today,” said president and CEO of Manitoba Hydro Jay Grewal.

“And our current, where we’re at now, our customers have told us through all this consultation and engagement over the last two years, they’re going to want and need more than 2.5 times the electricity than we have in the province today.”

The IRP indicates that the move towards low or no-carbon energy sources will accelerate the need for clean electricity, which will require significant investments, including new turbine investments to expand capacity. Some of the clean energy measures Hydro is looking at for the future include wind generation and energy efficiency.

The report also found that Manitoba is in a good position as it prepares for the future due to its hydroelectric system, which delivers around 97 per cent of the yearly electricity. However, the province’s existing supply is limited, and vulnerable to Western Canada drought impacts on hydropower, so other electrical energy sources will be needed.

“Something Manitobans may not realize is, we are in such a privileged province, because 97 per cent of the electricity produced in Manitoba today is clean energy and net zero,” Grewal said.

Manitoba also supplies power to neighbouring utilities, with a SaskPower purchase agreement to buy more electricity under an expanded deal.

The IRP is the result of a two-year development process that involved multiple rounds of engagement with customers and other interested parties. The IRP is not a development plan, but it arrives as Hydro warns it can't service new energy-intensive customers under current capacity, and it outlines how Manitoba Hydro will monitor, prepare and respond to the changes in the energy landscape.

“We spoke with over 15,000 of our customers, whether they’re residential, commercial, industrial, industry associations, regulators, government – across the board, we talked with our customers,” said Grewal.

“And what we did was through this work, we understood what our customers are anticipating using electricity for going forward.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News