Clarington picked for incinerator

Texas Energy Policy Debate centers on ERCOT and PUC directives, fossil fuels vs renewables, grid reliability, energy efficiency, battery storage, and blackout risks, shaping Texas power market rules, conservation alerts, and capacity planning.

Key Points

Policy fight over ERCOT/PUC rules weighing fossil fuels vs renewables and storage to bolster Texas grid reliability.

✅ ERCOT and PUC directives under political scrutiny

✅ Fossil fuel subsidies vs renewable incentives and storage

✅ Focus on grid reliability, efficiency, and blackout prevention

Earlier this week, Governor Abbott released a letter to the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), demanding electricity market reforms that Abbott falsely claims will "increase power generation capacity and to ensure the reliability of the Texas power grid."

Unfortunately, Abbott's letter promotes polluting, unreliable fossil fuels, attacks safer clean energy options, and ignores solutions that would actually benefit everyday Texans.

"Governor Abbott, in a blatant effort to politicize Texans' energy security, wants to double down on fossil fuels, even though they were the single largest point of failure during both February's blackouts and June's energy conservation alerts," said Cyrus Reed, Interim Director & Conservation Director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club.

"Many of these so-called solutions were considered and rejected most recently by the Texas Legislature. Texas must focus on expanding clean and reliable renewable energy, energy efficiency, and storage capacity, as voters consider funding to modernize generation in the months ahead.

"We can little afford to repeat the same mistakes that have failed to provide enough electricity where it is needed most and cost Texans billions of dollars. Instead of advocating for evidence-based solutions, Abbott wants to be a culture warrior for coal and gas, even as he touts grid readiness amid election season, even when it results in blackouts across Texas."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Australia Clean Energy Target drives renewables in the National Electricity Market, with RepuTex modelling and the Finkel Review showing lower wholesale prices and emissions as gas generators set prices less often under ambitious targets.

Key Points

Policy boosting low emissions generation to cut electricity emissions and lower wholesale prices across Australia.

✅ Ambitious targets lower wholesale prices through added generation

✅ RepuTex modelling shows renewables displace costly gas peakers

✅ Finkel Review suggests CET cuts emissions and boosts reliability

The more ambitious a clean energy target is, the lower Australian wholesale electricity prices will be, according to new modelling by energy analysis firm RepuTex.

The Finkel review, released last month recommended the government introduce a clean energy target (CET), which it found would cut emissions from the national electricity market and put downward pressure on both wholesale and retail prices, aligning with calls to favor consumers over generators in market design.

The Finkel review only modelled a CET that would cut emissions from the electricity sector by 28% below 2005 levels by 2030. But all available analysis has demonstrated that such a cut would not be enough to meet Australia’s overall emissions reductions made as part of the Paris agreement, which themselves were too weak to help meet the central aim of that agreement – to keep global warming to “well below 2C”.

RepuTex modelled the effect of a CET that cut emissions from the electricity sector by 28% – like that modelled in the Finkel Review – as well as one it said was consistent with 2C of global warming, which would cut emissions from electricity by 45% below 2005 levels by 2030.

It found both scenarios caused wholesale prices to drop significantly compared to doing nothing, despite IEA warnings on falling energy investment that could lead to shortages, with the more ambitious scenario resulting in lower wholesale prices between 2025 and 2030.

In the “business as usual scenario”, RepuTex found wholesale prices would hover roughly around the current price of $100 per MWh.

Under a CET that reduced electricity emissions by 28%, prices would drop to under $40 around 2023, and then rise to nearly $60 by 2030.

The more ambitious CET had a broadly similar effect on wholesale prices. But RepuTex found it would drive prices down a little slower, but then keep them down for longer, stabilising at about $40 to $50 for most of the 2020s.

It found a CET would drive prices down by incentivising more generation into the market. The more ambitious CET would further suppress prices by introducing more renewable energy, resulting in expensive gas generators less often being able to set the price of electricity in the wholesale market, a dynamic seen with UK natural gas price pressures recently.

The downward pressure of a CET on wholesale prices was more dramatic in the RepuTex report than in Finkel’s own modelling. But that was largely because, as Alan Finkel himself acknowledged, the estimates of the costs of renewable energy in the Finkel review modelling were conservative.

Speaking at the National Press Club, Finkel said: “We were conservative in our estimates of wind and large-scale solar generator prices. Indeed, in recent months the prices for wind generation have already come in lower than what we modelled.”

The RepuTex modelling also found the economics of the national electricity market no longer supported traditional baseload generation – such as coal power plants that were unable to respond flexibly to demand, with debates over power market overhauls in Alberta underscoring similar tensions – and so they would not be built without the government distorting the market.

“With a premium placed on flexible generation that can ramp up or down, baseload only generation – irrespective of how clean or dirty it is – is likely to be too inflexible to compete in Australia’s future electricity system,” the report said.

“In this context, renewable energy remains attractive to the market given it is able to deliver energy reliability, with no emissions, at low cost prices, with clean grid and battery trends in Canada informing the shift for policymakers. This affirms that renewables are a lay down misere to out-compete traditionally fossil-fuel sources in Australia for the foreseeable future.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Five Nations Energy Transmission Line connects remote First Nations to the Ontario power grid, delivering clean, reliable electricity to Western James Bay through Indigenous-owned transmission infrastructure, replacing diesel generators and enabling sustainable community growth.

Key Points

An Indigenous-owned grid link providing reliable power to Western James Bay First Nations, replacing polluting diesel.

✅ Built by five First Nations; fully Indigenous-owned utility

✅ 270 km line connecting remote James Bay communities

✅ Ended diesel dependence; enabled sustainable development

For the Indigenous communities along northern Ontario’s James Bay — the ones that have lived on and taken care of the lands as long as anyone can remember — the new millenium marked the start of a diesel-less future, even as Ontario’s electricity outlook raised concerns about getting dirtier in policy debates. 

While the southern part of the province took Ontario’s power grid for granted, despite lessons from Europe’s power crisis about reliability, the vast majority of these communities had never been plugged in. Their only source of power was a handful of very loud diesel-powered generators. Because of that, daily life in the Attawapiskat, Kashechewan and Fort Albany First Nations involved deliberating a series of tradeoffs. Could you listen to the radio while toasting a piece of bread? How many Christmas lights could you connect before nothing else was usable? Was there enough power to open a new school? 

The communities wanted a safe, reliable, clean alternative, with Manitoba’s clean energy illustrating regional potential, too. So did their chiefs, which is why they passed a resolution in 1996 to connect the area to Ontario’s grid, not just for basic necessities but to facilitate growth and development, and improve their communities’ quality of life. 

The idea was unthinkable at the time — scorned and dismissed by those who held the keys to Ontario’s (electrical) power, much like independent power projects can be in other jurisdictions. Even some in the community didn’t fully understand it. When the idea was first proposed at a gathering of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, which represents 49 First Nations, one attendee said the only way he could picture the connection was as “a little extension cord running through the bush from Moosonee.” 

But the leadership of Attawapiskat, Kashechewan and Fort Albany First Nations had been dreaming and planning. In 1997, along with members of Taykwa Tagamou and Moose Cree First Nations, they created the first, and thus far only, fully Indigenous-owned energy company in Canada: Five Nations Energy Inc., as partnerships like an OPG First Nation hydro project would later show in action, too. 

Over the next five years, the organization built Omushkego Ishkotayo, the Cree name for the Western James Bay transmission line: “Omushkego” refers to the Swampy Cree people, and “Ishkotayo” to hydroelectric power, while other regions were commissioning new BC generating stations in parallel. The 270-kilometre-long transmission line is in one of the most isolated regions of Ontario, one that can only be accessed by plane, except for a few months in winter when ice roads are strong enough to drive on. The project went online in 2001, bringing reliable power to over 7,000 people who were previously underserved by the province’s energy providers. It also, somewhat controversially, enabled Ontario’s first diamond mine in Attawapiskat territory.

The future the First Nations created 25 years ago is blissfully quiet, now that the diesel generators are shut off. “When the power went on, you could hear the birds,” Patrick Chilton, the CEO of Five Nations Energy, said with a smile. “Our communities were glowing.”

Power, politics and money: Five Nations Energy needed government, banks and builders on board
Chilton took over in 2013 after the former CEO, his brother Ed, passed away. “This was all his idea,” Chilton told The Narwhal in a conversation over Zoom from his office in Timmins, Ont. The company’s story has never been told before in full, he said, because he felt “vulnerable” to the forces that fought against Omushkego Ishkotayo or didn’t understand it, a dynamic underscored by Canada’s looming power problem reporting in recent years. 

The success of Five Nations Energy is a tale of unwavering determination and imagination, Chilton said, and it started with his older brother. “Ed was the first person who believed a transmission line was possible,” he said.

In a Timmins Daily Press death notice published July 2, 2013, Ed Chilton is described as having “a quiet but profound impact on the establishment of agreements and enterprises benefitting First Nations peoples and their lands.” Chilton doesn’t describe him that way, exactly. 

“If you knew my brother, he was very stubborn,” he said. A certified engineering technologist, Ed was a visionary whose whole life was defined by the transmission line. He was the first to approach the chiefs with the idea, the first to reach out to energy companies and government officials and the one who persuaded thousands of people in remote, underserved communities that it was possible to bring power to their region.

After that 1996 meeting of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, there came a four-year-long effort to convince the rest of Ontario, and the country, the project was possible and financially viable. The chiefs of the five First Nations took their idea to the halls of power: Queen’s Park, Parliament Hill and the provincial power distributor Hydro One (then Ontario Hydro). 

“All of them said no,” Chilton said. “They saw it as near to impossible — the idea that you could build a transmission line in the ‘swamp,’ as they called it.” The Five Nations Energy team kept a document at the time tracking how many times they heard no; it topped out at 37. 

One of the worst times was in 1998, at a meeting on the 19th floor of the Ontario Hydro building in the heart of downtown Toronto. There, despite all their preparation and planning, a senior member of the Ontario Hydro team told Chilton, Martin and other chiefs “you’ll build that line over my dead body,” Chilton recalled. 

At the time, Chilton said, Ontario Hydro was refusing to cooperate: unwilling to let go of its monopoly over transmission lines, but also saying it was unable to connect new houses in the First Nations to diesel generators it said were at maximum capacity. (Ontario Hydro no longer exists; Hydro One declined to comment.)

“There’s always naysayers no matter what you’re doing,” Martin said. “What we were doing had never been done before. So of course people were telling us how we had never managed something of this size or a budget of this size.” 

“[Our people] basically told them to blow it up your ass. We can do it,” Chilton said.

So the chiefs of the five nations did something they’d never done before: they went to all of the big banks and many, many charitable foundations trying to get the money, a big ask for a project of this scale, in this location. Without outside support, their pitch was that they’d build it themselves.

This was the hardest part of the process, said Lawrence Martin, the former Grand Chief of Mushkegowuk Tribal Council and a member of the Five Nations Energy board. “We didn’t know how to finance something like this, to get loans,” he told The Narwhal. “That was the toughest task for all of us to achieve.”

Eventually, they got nearly $50 million in funding from a series of financial organizations including the Bank of Montreal, Pacific and Western Capital, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation (an Ontario government agency) and the engineering and construction company SNC Lavalin, which did an assessment of the area and deemed the project viable. 

And in 1999, Ed Chilton, other members of the Chilton family and the chiefs were able to secure an agreement with Ontario Hydro that would allow them to buy electricity from the province and sell it to their communities. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Clean Energy Standard charts a federal path to decarbonize the power sector, scaling renewables, wind, solar, nuclear, and carbon capture to slash emissions, create green jobs, and reach net-zero targets amid the climate crisis.

Key Points

A federal policy to expand clean power and cut emissions with renewables, nuclear, and carbon capture toward net-zero.

✅ Mandates annual increases in clean electricity supply

✅ Includes renewables, nuclear, hydro, and carbon capture

✅ Targets rapid emissions cuts and net-zero by mid-century

The world has been put on notice. Last year, both the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. National Climate Assessment warned that we need to slash greenhouse gas emissions to avoid disastrous impacts of global warming. Their direct language forecasting devastating effects on our health, economics, environment, and ways of life has made even more urgent the responsibility we all have to act boldly to combat the climate crisis.

This week, we’re adding one important tool for addressing the climate crisis to the national conversation.

Together, we’re taking that bold action. The Climate reports made clear that to limit the global temperature rise and stave off devastating impacts to our climate—human-caused CO2 emissions must fall rapidly by 2030 and that we, as a global community, underscored at the Katowice climate talks, must reach net-zero emissions by the middle of the century. The Clean Energy Standard is federal legislation that offers a pathway toward decarbonizing our power sector and helping our nation accomplish a goal of net-zero emissions by the 2050s.

Under this plan, any company selling retail electricity will have a mandate to increase the amount of clean energy provided to its customers. It will incentivize clean electricity investment to put the U.S. on a sustainable path.

To deal most effectively with a crisis, all tools must be on the table. Our plan focuses solely on emissions, and there is a place for all technologies that can put us on the path to net zero. That will mean drastic increases in wind and solar energy for sure, as states like California pursue a 100% carbon-free electricity mandate to accelerate deployment, but nuclear power, hydro power, and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage all have important roles to play.

We’re doing this because the science is clear – tackling our climate crisis requires serious and rapid action to control greenhouse gas emissions, and the push for decarbonization is irreversible according to many. Inaction on the climate crisis puts our families at risk, and we’re not wasting any time. This is also an opportunity to create good-paying green jobs that can last generations and uplift the middle class.

We are doing this for the environment, but also for jobs and economic competitiveness. The green economy is the future and we’re ready to see it grow, with states like New York advancing a Green New Deal that drives innovation. The United States can lead, or we can follow, and we want our nation to lead.

And, because as a New Mexican and a Minnesotan, we know that the impacts of climate change go far beyond the headlines and political discourse. It means devastation within tamarack forests and an increase in deadly fires. It means hotter summers and shorter winters with extreme temperature swings throughout the year. It means devastating flash floods with increasingly intense rain. It’s impacting our pocketbooks when farmers and small businesses who work the land in rural communities are unable to make ends meet.

States across the country are already acting to combat the climate crisis – including Minnesota's 2050 carbon-free electricity plan and New Mexico. But in order to truly address climate change, we have to be in this together as Americans. If the problem is far-reaching, our solutions must be equally as holistic.

It's why we've worked with green groups and activists, unions, and communities across the country - from urban to rural - to create a solution that understands the different starting points communities face in reaching net zero emissions, but doesn't shrink from the absolute need to reach that standard.

There is not one solution to climate change – it will take a collective group of individuals prepared to boldly act. And we are ready to take on that fight.

In Congress, we have formed the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and the Senate Democrats’ Special Committee on the Climate Crisis to hear from everyday Americans how climate change is affecting them – and how we can come together to find solutions that build on the historic climate deal passed this year. We have heard the stories of young people worried about their futures. And we realize there is a sense of urgency to act.

Over the coming weeks and months, we will be building support from communities across the country to make this plan a reality. We will continue working with stakeholders to ensure every voice is heard. Most importantly, we will continue listening to you and your communities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Biofuels vs EV Subsidies examines tradeoffs in decarbonization, greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy deployment, charging infrastructure, energy security, lifecycle emissions, and transportation sector policy to meet climate goals and accelerate sustainable mobility.

Key Points

Policy tradeoffs weighing biofuels and EVs to cut GHGs, boost energy security, and advance clean transportation.

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

California is at the forefront of the transition to a greener economy, driven by its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. As part of its strategy, the state is grappling with the question of whether it should subsidize out-of-state biofuels or in-state electric vehicles (EVs) to meet these goals. Both options come with their own sets of benefits and challenges, and the decision carries significant implications for the state’s environmental, economic, and energy landscapes.

The Case for Biofuels

Biofuels have long been promoted as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. They are made from organic materials such as agricultural crops, algae, and waste, which means they can potentially reduce carbon emissions in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. In the context of California, biofuels—particularly ethanol and biodiesel—are viewed as a way to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is one of the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsidizing out-of-state biofuels can help California reduce its reliance on imported oil while promoting the development of biofuel industries in other states. This approach may have immediate benefits, as biofuels are widely available and can be blended with conventional fuels to lower carbon emissions right away. It also allows the state to diversify its energy sources, improving energy security by reducing dependency on oil imports.

Moreover, biofuels can be produced in many regions across the United States, including rural areas. By subsidizing out-of-state biofuels, California could foster economic development in these regions, creating jobs and stimulating agricultural innovation. This approach could also support farmers who grow the feedstock for biofuel production, boosting the agricultural economy in the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks. The environmental benefits of biofuels are often debated. Critics argue that the production of biofuels—particularly those made from food crops like corn—can contribute to deforestation, water pollution, and increased food prices. Additionally, biofuels are not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, as their production and combustion still release greenhouse gases. When considering whether to subsidize biofuels, California must also account for the full lifecycle emissions associated with their production and use.

The Case for Electric Vehicles

In contrast to biofuels, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a more direct pathway to reducing emissions from transportation. EVs are powered by electricity, and when coupled with renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, they can provide a nearly zero-emission solution for personal and commercial transportation. California has already invested heavily in EV infrastructure, including expanding its network of charging stations and exploring how EVs can support grid stability through vehicle-to-grid approaches, and offering incentives for consumers to purchase EVs.

Subsidizing in-state EVs could stimulate job creation and innovation within California's thriving clean-tech industry, with other states such as New Mexico projecting substantial economic gains from transportation electrification, and the state has already become a hub for electric vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla, Rivian, and several battery manufacturers. Supporting the EV industry could further strengthen California’s position as a global leader in green technology, attracting investment and fostering growth in related sectors such as battery manufacturing, renewable energy, and smart grid technology.

Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are substantial. As the electric grid becomes cleaner with an increasing share of renewable energy, EVs will become even greener, with lower lifecycle emissions than biofuels. By prioritizing EVs, California could further reduce its carbon footprint while also achieving its long-term climate goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

However, there are challenges. EV adoption in California remains a significant undertaking, requiring major investments in infrastructure as they challenge state power grids in the near term, technology, and consumer incentives. The cost of EVs, although decreasing, still remains a barrier for many consumers. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is essential for EV batteries. While renewable energy is expanding, California’s grid is still reliant on fossil fuels to some degree, and in other jurisdictions such as Canada's 2019 electricity mix fossil generation remains significant, meaning that the full emissions benefit of EVs is not realized until the grid is entirely powered by clean energy.

A Balancing Act

The debate between subsidizing out-of-state biofuels and in-state electric vehicles is ultimately a question of how best to allocate California’s resources to meet its climate and economic goals. Biofuels may offer a quicker fix for reducing emissions from existing vehicles, but their long-term benefits are more limited compared to the transformative potential of electric vehicles, even as some analysts warn of policy pitfalls that could complicate the transition.

However, biofuels still have a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy-duty transportation, where electrification may not be as feasible in the near future. Thus, a mixed strategy that includes both subsidies for EVs and biofuels may be the most effective approach.

Ultimately, California’s decision will likely depend on a combination of factors, including technological advancements, 2021 electricity lessons, and the pace of renewable energy deployment, and the state’s ability to balance short-term needs with long-term environmental goals. The road ahead is not easy, but California's leadership in clean energy will be crucial in shaping the nation’s response to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News