Ottawa wants reactor commitment from Ontario

Ford Oakville EV investment secures government funding, Unifor deal, and plant retooling, channeling $500 million plus $1.98 billion for Canadian electric vehicle manufacturing, Windsor engine contracts, and 2025 production, strengthening Ontario's auto industry.

Key Points

Government and Ford will retool Oakville for EVs, creating jobs under a Unifor deal and Windsor engine work.

✅ $500M government funding for plant retooling

✅ Ford commits $1.98B; five new EVs by 2025

✅ Unifor deal adds Windsor engine work, jobs

The federal government and Ontario have pledged to spend up to $500 million to make the Ford plant in Oakville, Ont., able to build electric vehicles, aligning with efforts to capitalize on the U.S. EV pivot underway.

The future of the plant has been a key question for Canada's automotive industry, as moves like GM's Ontario EV deal point to broader changes, ever since the Unifor union started negotiating with the automaker for a new three-year pact to cover the company's Canadian workforce.

The two sides struck a deal a few hours after a midnight strike deadline on Tuesday morning, one that will see the company commit $1.98 billion to build five new electric vehicles and an engine contract that could yield new EV jobs in Windsor, Ont.

Ford has previously committed to spending $11 billion US to develop and manufacture electric vehicles, but so far all of that money was earmarked for Ford plants in Mexico and the company's home state of Michigan.

"With Oakville gaining such a substantial portion of Ford's planned investment, the assembly plant and its workers are better set for employment going forward," said Sam Fiorani, vice-president of global forecasting at AutoForecast Solutions.

Unifor's 'unique' Ford deal includes 5 new electric vehicles in Oakville, engine for Windsor plants
Currently, the plant builds the Ford Edge and Lincoln Nautilus, but concerns over the plant's future emerged earlier this year when a report suggested Ford was contemplating scrapping the Edge altogether. The new vehicles will come as welcome news for the plant, even as Fiorani says he worries that demand for the electric vehicles (EV) has so far not lived up to the hype.

"The EV market is coming, and Ford looks to be preparing for it. However, the demand is just not growing in line with the proposed investment from all vehicle manufacturers," he said.

Plant needs upgrade first
And the plant can't simply flip a switch and start building an entirely new type of vehicle. It will require a major retooling, and that will require time — and cash — to happen, which is where government cash comes in, as seen with a Niagara Region battery plant supporting the EV supply chain.

As first reported by the Toronto Star, the two branches of government have committed to spent up to $500 million combined to upgrade the plant so that it can build electric vehicles.

"The retooling will begin in 2024 with vehicles rolling off the line in 2025," Unifor president Jerry Dias said. "So we know this is a decades-long commitment."

It's not clear what portion of the cash will come from what branch of government, but CBC News has previously reported that Wednesday's throne speech is expected to contain a number of policies aimed at beefing up Canada's electric vehicle industry, as EV assembly deals are putting Canada in the race, both on the consumer side and for businesses that build them.

Ontario's minister of economic development and trade welcomed the news of a tentative deal on Tuesday and confirmed that Queen's Park legislators stand ready to do their part, as shown by Honda's Ontario battery investment moves in the province.

"Our government will always work with our federal colleagues, workers and the auto sector to ensure the right conditions are in place for the industry to remain stable today and seize the new opportunities of tomorrow," a spokesperson for Vic Fedeli told CBC News in an emailed statement Tuesday.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

NB Power Pulp and Paper Subsidies lower electricity rates for six New Brunswick mills using firm power benchmarks and interruptible discounts, while government mandates, utility debt, ratepayer impacts, and competitiveness pressures shape provincial energy policy.

Key Points

Provincial mandates that buy down firm electricity rates for six mills to a national average, despite NB Power's debt.

✅ Mandated buy-down to match national firm electricity rates

✅ Ignores large non-firm interruptible power discounts

✅ Raises equity concerns amid NB Power debt and rate pressure

An effort to fix NB Power's struggling finances that is supposed to involve a look at "all options" will not include a review of the policy that requires the utility to subsidize electricity prices for six New Brunswick pulp and paper mills, according to the Department of Natural Resources and Energy Development.

The program is meant "to enable New Brunswick's pulp and paper companies have access to competitive priced electricity,"  said the department's communications officer Nick Brown in an email Monday 

"Keeping our large industries competitive with other Canadian jurisdictions, amid Nova Scotia rate hike opposition debates elsewhere, is important," he wrote, knocking down the idea the subsidy program might be scrutinized for shortcomings like other NB Power expenses.

Figures released last week show NB Power paid out $9.7 million in rate subsidies to the mills under the program in the fiscal year ended in March 2021, even though the utility was losing $4 million for the year and falling deeper into debt, amid separate concerns about old meter issues affecting households.

Subsidies went to three mills owned by J.D. Irving Ltd. including two in Saint John and one in Lake Utopia, two owned by the AV group in Nackawic and Atholville and the Twin Rivers pulp mill in Edmundston.

The New Brunswick government has made NB Power subsidize pulp and paper mills like Twin Rivers Paper Company since 2012, and is requiring the program to continue despite financial problems at the utility. (CBC)
It was NB Power's second year in a row of financial losses, while it is supposed to pay down $500 million of its $4.9 billion debt load in the next five years to prepare for the refurbishment of the Mactaquac dam, a burden comparable to customers in Newfoundland paying for Muskrat Falls elsewhere under separate policies, under a directive issued by the province

NB Power president Keith Cronkhite said he was "very disappointed" with debt increasing last year instead of  falling and senior vice president and chief financial officer Darren Murphy said everything would be under the microscope this year to turn the utility's finances around.  

"We need to do better," said Murphy on Thursday

"We need to step back and make sure we're considering all options, including approaches like Newfoundland's ratepayer shield agreement on megaproject overruns, to achieve that objective because the objective is quickly closing in on us."

However, reviewing the subsidy program for the six pulp and paper mills is apparently off limits.

The subsidy program requires NB Power to buy down the cost of "firm" electricity bought by pulp and paper mills to a national average that is calculated by the Department of Natural Resources and Energy Development.

Last year the province declared the price mills in New Brunswick pay to be an average of  7.536 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh).  It is higher than rates in five other provinces that have mills, which the province points to as justification for the subsidies, even as Nova Scotia's 14% rate hike approval highlights broader upward pressure, although the true significance of that difference is not entirely clear.

In British Columbia, the large forest products company Paper Excellence operates five pulp and paper mills which are charged 17.2 per cent less for firm electricity than the six mills in New Brunswick.

The Paper Excellence Paper Mill in Port Alberni, B.C. pays lower electricity prices than mills in New Brunswick, a benefit largely offset by higher property taxes. It's a factor New Brunswick does not count in calculating subsidies NB Power must pay. (Paper Excellence)
However, local property taxes on the five BC mills are a combined $7.8 million higher than the six New Brunswick plants, negating much of that difference.

The province's subsidy formula does not account for differences like that or for the fact New Brunswick mills buy a high percentage of their electricity at cheap non-firm prices.

Not counting the subsidies, NB Power already sells high volumes of what it calls interruptible and surplus power to industry at deep discounts on the understanding it can be cut off and redeployed elsewhere on short notice when needed.

Actual interruptions in service are rare.  Last year there were none, but NB Power sold 837 million kilowatt hours of the discounted power to industry at an average price of 4.9 cents per kwh.   

NB Power does not disclose how much of the $22 million or more in savings went to the six mills, but the price was 35 per cent below NB Power's posted rate for the plants and rivaled firm prices big mills receive anywhere in Canada, including Quebec.

Asked why the subsidy program ignores large amounts of discounted interruptible power used by New Brunswick mills in making comparisons between provinces, Brown said regulations governing the program require a comparison of firm prices only.

"The New Brunswick average rate is based on NB Power's published large industrial rate for firm energy, as required by the Electricity from Renewable Resources regulation," he wrote.

The subsidy program itself was imposed on NB Power by the province in 2012 to aid companies suffering after years of poor markets for forest products following the 2008 financial collapse and recession.  

Providing subsidies has cost NB Power $100 million so far and has continued even as markets for pulp products improved significantly and NB Power's own finances worsened.

Report warned against subsidies
NB Power has never directly criticized the program, but in a matter currently in front the of the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board looking at how NB Power might restructure its rates, including proposals such as seasonal rates that could prompt backlash, an independent consultant hired by the utility suggested rate subsidies to large export oriented manufacturing facilities, like pulp and paper mills, is generally a poor idea.

"We do not recommend offering subsidies to exporters," says the report by Christensen Associates Energy Consulting of Madison, Wis.

"There are two serious economic problems with subsidizing exports. The first is that the benefits may be less than the costs. The second problem is that subsidies tend to last forever, even if the circumstances that initially justified the subsidies have disappeared."

The Christensen report did not directly assess the merits of the current subsidy for pulp and paper mills but it addressed the issue because it said in the design of new rates "one NB Power business customer has raised the possibility that their electricity-intensive business ought to be granted subsidies because of the potential to generate extra benefits for the Province through increases in their exports"

That, said Christensen, rarely benefits the public.

"The direct costs of the subsidies are the subsidies themselves, a part of which ends up in the pockets of out-of-province consumers of the exported goods," said the report.  

"But there are also indirect costs due to the fact that the subsidies are financed through higher electricity prices, which means that other electricity customers have less money to spend on services provided by local businesses, thus putting a drag on the local economy."

The province does not agree.

Asked whether it has any studies or cost-benefit reviews that show the subsidy program is a net benefit to New Brunswick, the department cited none but maintained it is an important initiative, even as elsewhere governments have offered electricity bill credit relief to ratepayers.

"The program was designed to give large industrial businesses the ability to compete on a level energy field," wrote Brown.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis highlights nuclear power vs coal and natural gas, renewables and hydropower limits, carbon emissions, energy security, and baseload reliability during Russia-related supply shocks and winter demand.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis weighs reactor extensions vs coal revival to bolster security, curb emissions.

✅ Coal plants restarted; nuclear shutdown stays on schedule.

✅ Energy security prioritized amid Russian gas supply cuts.

✅ Emissions likely rise despite renewables expansion.

Peel away the politics and the passion, the doomsaying and the denialism, and climate change largely boils down to this: energy. To avoid the chances of catastrophic climate change while ensuring the world can continue to grow — especially for poor people who live in chronically energy-starved areas — we’ll need to produce ever more energy from sources that emit little or no greenhouse gases.

It’s that simple — and, of course, that complicated.

Zero-carbon sources of renewable energy like wind and solar have seen tremendous increases in capacity and equally impressive decreases in price in recent years, while the decades-old technology of hydropower is still what the International Energy Agency calls the “forgotten giant of low-carbon electricity.”

And then there’s nuclear power. Viewed strictly through the lens of climate change, nuclear power can claim to be a green dream, even as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy most.

Unlike coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions when they generate electricity, and over the past 50 years they’ve reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 60 gigatonnes. Unlike solar or wind, nuclear plants aren’t intermittent, and they require significantly less land area per megawatt produced. Unlike hydropower — which has reached its natural limits in many developed countries, including the US — nuclear plants don’t require environmentally intensive dams.

As accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown, when nuclear power goes wrong, it can go really wrong. But newer plant designs reduce the risk of such catastrophes, which themselves tend to garner far more attention than the steady stream of deaths from climate change and air pollution linked to the normal operation of conventional power plants.

So you might imagine that those who see climate change as an unparalleled existential threat would cheer the development of new nuclear plants and support the extension of nuclear power already in service.

In practice, however, that’s often not the case, as recent events in Germany underline.

When is a Green not green?
The Russian war in Ukraine has made a mess of global energy markets, but perhaps no country has proven more vulnerable than Germany, reigniting debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany among policymakers.

At the start of the year, Russian exports supplied more than half of Germany’s natural gas, along with significant portions of its oil and coal imports. Since the war began, Russia has severely curtailed the flow of gas to Germany, putting the country in a state of acute energy crisis, with fears growing as next winter looms.

With little natural gas supplies of the country’s own, and its heavily supported renewable sector unable to fully make up the shortfall, German leaders faced a dilemma. To maintain enough gas reserves to get the country through the winter, they could try to put off the closure of Germany’s last three remaining nuclear reactors temporarily, which were scheduled to shutter by the end of 2022 as part of Germany’s post-Fukushima turn against nuclear power, and even restart already closed reactors.

Or they could try to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants, and make up some of the electricity deficit with Germany’s still-ample coal reserves.

Based on carbon emissions alone, you’d presumably go for the nuclear option. Coal is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, responsible for a fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions — more than any other single source — as well as a soup of conventional air pollutants. Nuclear power produces none of these.

German legislators saw it differently. Last week, the country’s parliament, with the backing of members of the Green Party in the coalition government, passed emergency legislation to reopen coal-powered plants, as well as further measures to boost the production of renewable energy. There would be no effort to restart closed nuclear power plants, or even consider a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout for the last active reactors.

“The gas storage tanks must be full by winter,” Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister and a member of the Green Party, said in June, echoing arguments that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue for the coming winter.

Partially as a result of that prioritization, Germany — which has already seen carbon emissions rise over the past two years, missing its ambitious emissions targets — will emit even more carbon in 2022.

To be fair, restarting closed nuclear power plants is a far more complex undertaking than lighting up old coal plants. Plant operators had only bought enough uranium to make it to the end of 2022, so nuclear fuel supplies are set to run out regardless.

But that’s also the point. Germany, which views itself as a global leader on climate, is grasping at the most carbon-intensive fuel source in part because it made the decision in 2011 to fully turn its back on nuclear for good at the time, enshrining what had been a planned phase-out into law.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

WEC Energy Blooming Grove Investment underscores Midwest renewable energy growth, with Invenergy, GE turbines, and 250 MW wind power capacity, tax credits, PPAs, and utility-scale generation supplying corporate offtakers via long-term contracts.

Key Points

It is WEC Energy's $345M purchase of an 80% stake in Invenergy's 250 MW Blooming Grove wind farm in Illinois.

✅ 94 GE turbines; 250 MW utility-scale wind capacity

✅ Output contracted to two multinational offtakers

✅ Eligible for 100% bonus depreciation and wind tax credits

WEC Energy Group, the parent company of We Energies, is buying an 80% stake in a wind farm, as seen with projects like Enel's 450 MW wind farm coming online, in McLean County, Illinois, for $345 million.

The wind farm, known as the Blooming Grove Wind Farm, is being developed by Invenergy, which recently completed the largest North American wind build with GE partners, a company based in Chicago that develops wind, solar and other power projects. WEC Energy has invested in several wind farms developed by Invenergy.

With the agreement announced Monday, WEC Energy will have invested more than $1.2 billion in wind farms in the Midwest, echoing heartland investment growth across the region. The power from the wind farms is sold to other utilities or companies, as federal initiatives like DOE wind awards continue to support innovation, and the projects are separate from the investments made by WEC Energy's regulated utilities, such as We Energies, in wind power.

The project, which will consist of 94 wind turbines from General Electric, is expected to be completed this year, similar to recent project operations in the sector, and will have a capacity of 250 megawatts, WEC said in a news release.

Affiliates of two undisclosed multinational companies akin to EDF's offshore investment activity have contracted to take all of the wind farm's output.

The investment is expected to be eligible for 100% bonus depreciation and, as wind economics help illustrate key trends, the tax credits available for wind projects, WEC Energy said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California Electricity Rate Overhaul proposes a fixed fee and lower per-kWh rates to boost electrification, renewables, and grid reliability, while CPUC weighs impacts on conservation, low-income customers, and time-of-use pricing across the state.

Key Points

A proposal to add fixed fees and cut per-kWh prices to drive electrification, support renewables, and balance grid costs.

✅ Fixed monthly fee plus lower volumetric per-kWh charges

✅ Aims to accelerate EVs, heat pumps, and building electrification

✅ CPUC review weighs equity, conservation, and grid reliability

California is contemplating a significant overhaul to its electricity rate structure that could bring major changes to electric bills statewide, a move that has ignited debate among environmentalists and politicians alike. The proposed modifications, spearheaded by the California Energy Commission (CEC), would introduce a fixed fee on electric bills and lower the rate per kilowatt-hour (kWh) used.

Motivations for the Change

Proponents of the plan argue that it would incentivize Californians to transition to electric appliances and vehicles, a critical aspect of the state's ambitious climate goals. They reason that a lower per-unit cost would make electricity a more attractive option for applications like home heating and transportation, which are currently dominated by natural gas and gasoline. Additionally, they believe the plan would spur investment in renewable energy sources and distributed generation, ultimately leading to a cleaner electricity grid.

California has some of the most ambitious climate goals in the country, aiming to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The transportation sector is the state's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and electrification is considered a key strategy for reducing emissions. A 2021 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found that electrifying all California vehicles and buildings could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% compared to 2020 levels.

Concerns and Potential Impacts

Opponents of the proposal, including some consumer rights groups, express apprehensions that it would discourage conservation efforts. They argue that with a lower per-kWh cost, Californians would have less motivation to reduce their electricity consumption. Additionally, they raise concerns that the income-based fixed charges could disproportionately burden low-income households, who may struggle to afford the base charge regardless of their overall electricity consumption.

A recent study by the CEC suggests that the impact on most Californians would be negligible, even as regulators face calls for action over soaring bills from ratepayers across the state. The report predicts that the average household's electricity bill would change by less than $5 per month under the proposed system. However, some critics argue that this study may not fully account for the potential behavioral changes that could result from the new rate structure.

Similar Initiatives and National Implications

California is not the only state exploring changes to its electricity rates to promote clean energy. Hawaii and New York have also implemented similar programs to encourage consumers to use electricity during off-peak hours. These time-varying rates, also known as time-of-use rates, can help reduce strain on the electricity grid during peak demand periods.

The California proposal has garnered national attention as other states grapple with similar challenges in balancing clean energy goals with affordability concerns amid soaring electricity prices in California and beyond. The outcome of this debate could have significant implications for the broader effort to decarbonize the U.S. power sector.

The Road Ahead

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is reviewing the proposal and anticipates making a decision later this year, with a potential income-based flat-fee structure under consideration. The CPUC will likely consider the plan's potential benefits and drawbacks, including its impact on greenhouse gas emissions, electricity costs for consumers, and the overall reliability of the grid, even as some lawmakers seek to overturn income-based charges in the legislature.

The decision on California's electricity rates is merely one piece of the puzzle in the fight against climate change. However, it is a significant one, with the potential to shape the state's energy landscape for years to come, including the future of residential rooftop solar markets and investments.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Massachusetts Energy Code Updates align DOER regulations with BBRS standards, advancing Stretch Code and Specialized Code beyond the Base Energy Code to accelerate net-zero construction, electrification, and high-efficiency building performance across municipal opt-in communities.

Key Points

They are DOER-led changes to Base, Stretch, and Specialized Codes to drive net-zero, electrified, efficient buildings.

✅ Updates apply Base, Stretch, or opt-in Specialized Code.

✅ Targets net-zero by 2050 with electrification-first design.

✅ Municipalities choose code path via City Council or Town Meeting.

Massachusetts will soon see significant updates to the energy codes that govern the construction and alteration of buildings throughout the Commonwealth.

As required by the 2021 climate bill, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) has recently finalized regulations updating the current Stretch Energy Code, previously promulgated by the state's Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS), and establishing a new Specialized Code geared toward achieving net-zero building energy performance.

The final code has been submitted to the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy for review as required under state law, amid ongoing Connecticut market overhaul discussions that could influence regional dynamics.

Under the new regulations, each municipality must apply one of the following:

Base Energy Code - The current Base Energy Code is being updated by the BBRS as part of its routine updates to the full set of building codes. This base code is the default if a municipality has not opted in to an alternative energy code.

Stretch Code - The updated Stretch Code creates stricter guidelines on energy-efficiency for almost all new constructions and alterations in municipalities that have adopted the previous Stretch Code, paralleling 100% carbon-free target in Minnesota and elsewhere to support building decarbonization. The updated Stretch Code will automatically become the applicable code in any municipality that previously opted-in to the Stretch Code.

Specialized Code - The newly created Specialized Code includes additional requirements above and beyond the Stretch Code, designed to get to ensure that new construction is consistent with a net-zero economy by 2050, similar to Canada's clean electricity regulations that set a 2050 decarbonization pathway. Municipalities must opt-in to adopt the Specialized Code by vote of City Council or Town Meeting.

The new codes are much too detailed to summarize in a blog post. You can read more here. Without going into those details here, it is worth noting a few significant policy implications of the new regulations:

With roughly 90% of Massachusetts municipalities having already adopted the prior version of the Stretch Code, the Commonwealth will effectively soon have a new base code that, even if it does not mandate zero-energy buildings, is nonetheless very aggressive in pushing new construction to be as energy-efficient as possible, as jurisdictions such as Ontario clean electricity regulations continue to reshape the power mix.

Although some concerns have been raised about the cost of compliance, particularly in a period of high inflation, and amid solar demand charge debates in Massachusetts, our understanding is that many developers have indicated that they can work with the new regulations without significant adverse impacts.

Of course, the success of the new codes depends on the success of the Commonwealth's efforts to transition quickly to a zero-carbon electrical grid, supported by initiatives like the state's energy storage solicitation to bolster reliability. If the cost of doing so is higher than expected, there could well be public resistance. If new transmission doesn't get built out sufficiently quickly or other problems occur, such that the power is not available to electrify all new construction, that would be a much more significant problem - for many reasons!

In short, the new regulations unquestionably set the Commonwealth on a course to electrify new construction and squeeze carbon emissions out of new buildings. However, as with the rest of our climate goals, there are a lot of moving pieces, including proposals for a clean electricity standard shaping the power sector that are going to have to come together to make the zero-carbon economy a reality.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News