Native groups want a piece of energy pie

Kenya Nuclear Power Plant Project advances with environmental impact assessment, selecting Tana River County under a build-operate-transfer model to boost grid capacity, support manufacturing growth, and assess reactor technology for reliable baseload energy.

Key Points

A $5B BOT nuclear facility in Tana River to expand Kenya's grid, aiming to start operations in about seven years.

✅ Environmental impact study published for public review by NEMA

✅ Preferred site: Tana River County near coast; grid integration

✅ BOT concession; reactor tech under evaluation for baseload

Kenya’s nuclear agency submitted impact studies for a $5 billion power plant, and said it’s on course to build and start operating the facility in about seven years, as markets like China's nuclear program continue steady expansion.

The government plans to expand its nuclear-power capacity fourfold by 2035, mirroring policy steps in India to revive the sector, the Nuclear Power and Energy Agency said in a report on the National Environment Management Authority’s website. The document is set for public scrutiny before the environmental watchdog can approve it, aligning with global green industrial strategies that weigh nuclear in decarbonization, and pave the way for the project to continue.

President Uhuru Kenyatta wants to ramp up installed generation capacity from 2,712 megawatts as of April to boost manufacturing in East Africa’s largest economy, noting milestones such as Barakah Unit 1 reaching 100% power as indicators of nuclear readiness. Kenya expects peak demand to top 22,000 megawatts by 2031, and other jurisdictions, such as Ontario's exploration of new nuclear, are weighing similar large-scale options, partly due to industrial expansion, a component in Kenyatta’s Big Four Agenda. The other three are improving farming, health care and housing.

The nuclear agency is assessing technologies “to identify the ideal reactor for the country,” it said in the report, including next-gen nuclear designs now being evaluated.

A site in Tana River County, near the Kenyan coast was preferred after studies across three regions, according to the report. The plant will be developed with a concessionaire under a build, operate and transfer model, with innovators such as mini-reactor concepts informing vendor options.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Drone and artillery attacks reported on power and gas assets

✅ Both sides accuse each other of breaking truce terms

✅ U.S. mediation faces verification and compliance hurdles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nuclear Energy Growth accelerates as nations pursue decarbonization, complement renewables, displace coal, and ensure grid reliability with firm, low-carbon baseload, benefiting from standardized builds, lower cost of capital, and learning-curve cost reductions.

Key Points

Expansion of nuclear capacity to cut CO2, complement renewables, replace coal, and stabilize grids at low-carbon cost.

✅ Complements renewables; displaces coal for faster decarbonization

✅ Cuts system costs via standardization and lower cost of capital

✅ Provides firm, low-carbon baseload and grid reliability

By Kirill Komarov, Chairman, World Nuclear Association.

As Europe and the wider world begins to wake up to the need to cut emissions, Dr Kirill Komarov argues that tackling climate change will see the use of nuclear energy grow in the coming years, not as a competitor to renewables but as a competitor to coal.

The nuclear industry keeps making headlines and spurring debates on energy policy, including the green industrial revolution agenda in several countries. With each new build project, the detractors of nuclear power crowd the bandwagon to portray renewables as an easy and cheap alternative to ‘increasingly costly’ nuclear: if solar and wind are virtually free why bother splitting atoms?

Yet, paradoxically as it may seem, if we are serious about policy response to climate change, nuclear energy is seeing an atomic energy resurgence in the coming decade or two.

Growth has already started to pick up with about 3.1 GW new capacity added in the first half of 2018 in Russia and China while, at the very least, 4GW more to be completed by the end of the year – more than doubling the capacity additions in 2017.

In 2019 new connections to the grid would exceed 10GW by a significant margin.

If nuclear is in decline, why then do China, India, Russia and other countries keep building nuclear power plants?

To begin with, the issue of cost, argued by those opposed to nuclear, is in fact largely a bogus one, which does not make a fully rounded like for like comparison.

It is true that the latest generation reactors, especially those under construction in the US and Western Europe, have encountered significant construction delays and cost overruns.

But the main, and often the only, reason for that is the ‘first-of-a-kind’ nature of those projects.

If you build something for the first time, be it nuclear, wind or solar, it is expensive. Experience shows that with series build, standardised construction economies of scale and the learning curve from multiple projects, costs come down by around one-third; and this is exactly what is already happening in some parts of the world.

Furthermore, those first-of-a-kind projects were forced to be financed 100% privately and investors had to bear all political risks. It sent the cost of capital soaring, increasing at one stroke the final electricity price by about one third.

While, according to the International Energy Agency, at 3% cost of capital rate, nuclear is the cheapest source of energy: on average 1% increase adds about US$6-7 per MWh to the final price.

When it comes to solar and wind, the truth, inconvenient for those cherishing the fantasy of a world relying 100% on renewables, is that the ‘plummeting prices’ (which, by the way, haven’t changed much over the last three years, reaching a plateau) do not factor in so-called system and balancing costs associated with the need to smooth the intermittency of renewables.

Put simply, the fact the sun doesn’t shine at night and wind doesn’t blow all the time means wind and solar generation needs to be backed up.

According to a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, integration of intermittent renewables into the grid is estimated in some cases to be as expensive as power generation itself.

Delivering the highest possible renewable content means customers’ bills will have to cover: renewable generation costs, energy storage solutions, major grid updates and interconnections investment, as well as gas or coal peaking power plants or ‘peakers’, which work only from time to time when needed to back up wind and solar.

The expected cost for kWh for peakers, according to investment bank Lazard is about twice that of conventional power plants due to much lower capacity factors.

Despite exceptionally low fossil fuel prices, peaking natural gas generation had an eye-watering cost of $156-210 per MWh in 2017 while electricity storage, replacing ‘peakers’, would imply an extra cost of $186-413 per MWh.

Burning fossil fuels is cheaper but comes with a great deal of environmental concern and extensive use of coal would make net-zero emissions targets all but unattainable.

So, contrary to some claims, nuclear does not compete with renewables. Moreover, a recent study by the MIT Energy Initiative showed, most convincingly, that renewables and load following advanced nuclear are complementary.

Nuclear competes with coal. Phasing out coal is crucial to fighting climate change. Putting off decisions to build new nuclear capacities while increasing the share of intermittent renewables makes coal indispensable and extends its life.

Scientists at the Brattle group, a consultancy, argue that “since CO2 emissions persist for many years in the atmosphere, near-term emission reductions are more helpful for climate protection than later ones”.

The longer we hesitate with new nuclear build the more difficult it becomes to save the Earth.

Nuclear power accounta for about one-tenth of global electricity production, but as much as one-third of generation from low-carbon sources. 1GWe of installed nuclear capacity prevents emissions of 4-7 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year, depending on the region.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that in order to limit the average global temperature increase to 2°C and still meet global power demand, we need to connect to the grid at least 20GW of new nuclear energy each year.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) sets the target even higher with the total of 1,000 GWe by 2050, or about 10 GWe per year before 2020; 25 GWe per year from 2021 to 2025; and on average 33 GWe from 2026 to 2050.

Regulatory and political challenges in the West have made life for nuclear businesses in the US and in Europe's nuclear sector very difficult, driving many of them to the edge of insolvency; but in the rest of the world nuclear energy is thriving.

Nuclear vendors and utilities post healthy profits and invest heavily in next-gen nuclear innovation and expansion. The BRICS countries are leading the way, taking over the initiative in the global climate agenda. From their perspective, it’s the opposite of decline.

Dr Kirill Komarov is first deputy CEO of Russian state nuclear energy operator Rosatom and chairman of the World Nuclear Association.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California income-based utility charges face bipartisan pushback as the PUC weighs fixed fees for PG&E, SDG&E, and Southern California Edison, reshaping rate design, electricity affordability, energy equity, and privacy amid proposed per-kWh reductions.

Key Points

PUC-approved fixed fees tied to household income for PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE, offset by lower per-kWh rates.

✅ Proposed fixed fees: $51 SCE, $73.31 SDG&E, $50.92 PG&E

✅ Critics warn admin, privacy, legal risks and higher bills for savers

✅ Backers say lower-income pay less; kWh rates cut ~33% in PG&E area

Efforts are being made across California's political landscape to derail a legislative initiative that introduced income-based utility charges for customers of Southern California Edison and other major utilities.

Legislators from both the Democratic and Republican parties have proposed bills aimed at nullifying the 2022 legislation that established a sliding scale for utility charges based on customer income, a decision made in a late-hour session and subsequently endorsed by Governor Gavin Newsom.

The plan, pending final approval from the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) — all of whose current members were appointed by Governor Newsom — would enable utilities like Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, and PG&E to apply new income-based charges as early as this July.

Among the state legislators pushing back against the income-based charge scheme are Democrats Jacqui Irwin and Marc Berman, along with Republicans Janet Nguyen, Kelly Seyarto, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Scott Wilk, Brian Dahle, Shannon Grove, and Roger Niello.

A cadre of specialists, including economist Ahmad Faruqui who has advised all three utilities implicated in the fee proposal, have outlined several concerns regarding the PUC's pending decision.

Faruqui and his colleagues argue that the proposed charges are excessively high in comparison to national standards, reflecting soaring electricity prices across the state, potentially leading to administrative challenges, legal disputes, and negative unintended outcomes, such as penalizing energy-conservative consumers.

Advocates for the income-based fee model, including The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the National Resources Defense Council, argue it would result in higher charges for wealthier consumers and reduced fees for those with lower incomes. They also believe that the utilities plan to decrease per kilowatt-hour rates as part of a broader rate structure review to balance out the new fees.

However, even supporters like TURN and the Natural Resources Defense Council acknowledge that the income-based fee model is not a comprehensive solution to making soaring electricity bills more affordable.

If implemented, California would have the highest income-based utility fees in the country, with averages far surpassing the national average of $11.15, as reported by EQ Research:

• Southern California Edison would charge $51.
• San Diego Gas & Electric would levy $73.31.
• PG&E would set fees at $50.92.

The proposal has raised concerns among state legislators about the additional financial burden on Californians already struggling with high electricity costs.

Critics highlight several practical challenges, including the PUC's task of assessing customers' income levels, a process fraught with privacy concerns, potential errors, and constitutional questions regarding access to tax information.

Economists have pointed out further complications, such as the difficulty in accurately assessing incomes for out-of-state property owners and the variability of customers' incomes over time.

The proposed income-based charges would differ by income bracket within the PG&E service area, for example, with lower-income households facing lower fixed charges and higher-income households facing higher charges, alongside a proposed 33% reduction in electricity rates to help mitigate the fixed charge impact.

Yet, the economists warn that most customers, particularly low-usage customers, could end up paying more, essentially rewarding higher consumption and penalizing efficiency.

This legislative approach, they caution, could inadvertently increase costs for moderate users across all income brackets, a sign of major changes to electric bills that could emerge, challenging the very goals it aims to achieve by promoting energy inefficiency.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

UK Peak Power Prices surged as low wind speeds forced National Grid to rely on gas-fired plants and coal generation, amid soaring wholesale gas prices and weak wind generation during the energy crisis.

Key Points

UK Peak Power Prices are electricity costs at peak hours, driven by wind output, gas reliance, and market dynamics.

✅ Spikes when wind generation drops and demand rises.

✅ Driven by gas-fired plants, coal backup, and wholesale gas prices.

✅ Moderate as wind output recovers and interconnectors supply.

Low wind speeds pushed peak hour power prices to the second highest level for at least three years on Monday, a move consistent with UK electricity prices hitting a 10-year high earlier this year, as Britain’s grid was forced to increase its reliance on gas-fired power plants and draw on coal generation.

Calm weather this year has exacerbated the energy price crisis in the UK, as gas-fired power stations have had to pick up the slack from wind farms. Energy demand has surged as countries open up from pandemic restrictions, which together with lower supplies from Russia to western Europe, has sent wholesale gas prices soaring.

Power prices in the UK for the peak evening period between 5pm and 6pm on Monday surpassed £2,000 per megawatt hour, only the second time they have exceeded that level in recent years.

This was still below the levels reached at the height of the gas price crisis in mid-September, when they hit £2,500/MWh, according to the energy consultancy Cornwall Insight, whose records date back to 2018.

Low wind speeds were the main driver behind Monday’s price spike, although expectations of a pick-up in wind generation on Tuesday, after recent record wind generation days, should push them back down to similar levels seen in recent weeks, analysts said.

Despite the expansion of renewables, such as wind and solar, over the past decade, with instances of wind leading the power mix in recent months, gas remains the single biggest source of electricity generation in Britain, typically accounting for nearly 40 per cent of output.

At lunchtime on Monday, gas-fired power plants were producing nearly 55 per cent of electricity, while coal accounted for 3 per cent, reflecting more power from wind than coal in 2016 milestones. Britain’s wind farms were contributing 1.67 gigawatts or just over 4 per cent, according to data from the Drax Electrics Insights website. Over the past 12 months, wind farms have produced 21 per cent of the UK’s electricity on average.

National Grid, which manages the UK’s electricity grid, has been forced on a number of occasions in recent months to ask coal plants to fire up to help offset the loss of wind generation, after issuing a National Grid short supply warning to the market. The government announced in June that it planned to bring forward the closure of the remaining coal stations to the end of September 2024.

Ministers also committed this year to making Britain’s electricity grid “net zero carbon” by 2035, and milestones such as when wind was the main source underline the transition, although some analysts have pointed out that would not signal the end of gas generation.

Since the start of the energy crisis in August, 20 energy suppliers have gone bust as they have struggled to secure the electricity and gas needed to supply customers at record wholesale prices, with further failures expected in coming weeks.

Phil Hewitt, director of the consultancy EnAppSys, said Monday’s high prices would further exacerbate pressures on those energy suppliers that do not have adequate hedging strategies. “This winter is a good time to be a generator,” he added.

Energy companies including Orsted of Denmark and SSE of the UK have reported some of the lowest wind speeds for at least two decades this year, even though record output during Storm Malik highlighted the system's volatility.

According to weather modelling group Vortex, the strength of the wind blowing across northern Europe has fallen by as much as 15 per cent on average in places this year, which some scientists suggest could be due to climate change.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Lake Erie Connector Investment advances a 1,000 MW HVDC transmission link connecting Ontario to the PJM Interconnection, enhancing grid reliability, clean power trade, and GHG reductions through a public-private partnership led by CIB and ITC.

Key Points

A $1.7B public-private HVDC project linking Ontario and PJM to boost reliability, cut GHGs, and enable clean power trade.

✅ 1,000 MW, 117 km HVDC link between Ontario and PJM

✅ $655M CIB and $1.05B private financing, ITC to own-operate

✅ Cuts system costs, boosts reliability, reduces GHG emissions

The Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) and ITC Investment Holdings (ITC) have signed an agreement in principle to invest $1.7 billion in the Lake Erie Connector project.

Under the terms of the agreement, the CIB will invest up to $655 million or up to 40% of the project cost. ITC, a subsidiary of Fortis Inc., and private sector lenders will invest up to $1.05 billion, the balance of the project's capital cost.

The CIB and ITC Investment Holdings signed an agreement in principle to invest $1.7B in the Lake Erie Connector project.

The Lake Erie Connector is a proposed 117 kilometre underwater transmission line connecting Ontario with the PJM Interconnection, the largest electricity market in North America, and aligns with broader regional efforts such as the Maine transmission line to import Quebec hydro to strengthen cross-border interconnections.

The 1,000 megawatt, high-voltage direct current connection will help lower electricity costs for customers in Ontario and improve the reliability and security of Ontario's energy grid, complementing emerging solutions like battery storage across the province. The Lake Erie Connector will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and be a source of low-carbon electricity in the Ontario and U.S. electricity markets.

During construction, the Lake Erie Connector is expected to create 383 jobs per year and drive more than $300 million in economic activity, and complements major clean manufacturing investments like a $1.6 billion battery plant in the Niagara Region that supports the EV supply chain. Over its life, the project will provide 845 permanent jobs and economic benefits by boosting Ontario's GDP by $8.8 billion.

The project will also help Ontario to optimize its current infrastructure, avoid costs associated with existing production curtailments or shutdowns. It can leverage existing generation capacity and transmission lines to support electricity demand, alongside new resources such as the largest battery storage project planned for southwestern Ontario.

ITC continues its discussions with First Nations communities and is working towards meaningful participation in the near term and as the project moves forward to financial close.

The CIB anticipates financial close late in 2021, pending final project transmission agreements, with construction commencing soon after. ITC will own the transmission line and be responsible for all aspects of design, engineering, construction, operations and maintenance.

ITC acquired the Lake Erie Connector project in August 2014 and it has received all necessary regulatory and permitting approvals, including a U.S. Presidential Permit and approval from the Canada Energy Regulator.

This is the CIB's first investment commitment in a transmission project and another example of the CIB's momentum to quickly implement its $10B Growth Plan, amid broader investments in green energy solutions in British Columbia that support clean growth.

Endorsements

This project will allow Ontario to export its clean, non-emitting power to one of the largest power markets in the world and, as a result, benefit Canadians economically while also significantly contributing to greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the PJM market. The project allows Ontario to better manage peak capacity and meet future reliability needs in a more sustainable way. This is a true win-win for both Canada and the U.S., both economically and environmentally.
Ehren Cory, CEO, Canada Infrastructure Bank

The Lake Erie Connector has tremendous potential to generate customer savings, help achieve shared carbon reduction goals, and increase electricity system reliability and flexibility. We look forward to working with the CIB, provincial and federal governments to support a more affordable, customer-focused system for Ontarians. 
Jon Jipping, EVP & COO, ITC Investment Holdings Inc., a subsidiary of Canadian-based Fortis Inc. 

We are encouraged by this recent announcement by the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation has an interest in projects within our historic treaty lands that have environmental benefits and that offer economic participation for our community.
Chief Stacey Laforme, Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation

While our evaluation of the project continues, we recognize this project can contribute to the economic resilience of our Shareholder, the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. Subject to the successful conclusion of our collaborative efforts with ITC, we look forward to our involvement in building the necessary infrastructure that enable Ontario's economic engine.
Leonard Rickard, CEO, Mississaugas of the Credit Business Corporation

The Lake Erie Connector demonstrates the advantages of public-private partnerships to develop critical infrastructure that delivers greater value to Ontarians. Connecting Ontario's electricity grid to the PJM electricity market will bring significant, tangible benefits to our province. This new connection will create high-quality jobs, improve system flexibility, and allow Ontario to export more excess electricity to promote cost-savings for Ontario's electricity consumers.
Greg Rickford, Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, Minister of Indigenous Affairs

With the US pledging to achieve a carbon-free electrical grid by 2035, Canada has an opportunity to export clean power, helping to reduce emissions, maximizing clean power use and making electricity more affordable for Canadians. The Lake Erie Connector is a perfect example of that. The Canada Infrastructure Bank's investment will give Ontario direct access to North America's largest electricity market - 13 states and D.C. This is part of our infrastructure plan to create jobs across the country, tackle climate change, and increase Canada's competitiveness in the clean economy, alongside innovation programs like the Hydrogen Innovation Fund that foster clean technology.

Quick Facts

• The Lake Erie Connector is a 1,000 megawatt, 117 kilometre long underwater transmission line connecting Ontario and Pennsylvania.
• The PJM Interconnection is a regional transmission organization coordinating the movement of wholesale electricity in all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.
• The project will help to reduce electricity system costs for customers in Ontario, and aligns with ongoing consultations on industrial electricity pricing and programs, while helping to support future capacity needs.
• The CIB is mandated to invest CAD $35 billion and attract private sector investment into new revenue-generating infrastructure projects that are in the public interest and support Canadian economic growth.
• The investment commitment is subject to final due diligence and approval by the CIB's Board.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News