OBIEC receives approval from CSA

Canada Three-Layer Mask Recommendation advises non-medical masks with a polypropylene filter layer and tightly woven cotton, aligned with WHO guidance, to curb COVID-19 aerosols indoors through better fit, coverage, and public health compliance.

Key Points

PHAC advises three-layer non-medical masks with a polypropylene filter to improve indoor COVID-19 protection.

✅ Two fabric layers plus a non-woven polypropylene filter

✅ Ensure snug fit: cover nose, mouth, chin without gaps

✅ Aligns with WHO guidance for aerosols and droplets

The Public Health Agency of Canada is now recommending Canadians choose three-layer non-medical masks with a filter layer to prevent the spread of COVID-19, even as an IEA report projects higher electricity needs for net-zero, as they prepare to spend more time indoors over the winter.

Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam made the recommendation during her bi-weekly pandemic briefing in Ottawa Tuesday, as officials also track electricity grid security amid critical infrastructure concerns.

"To improve the level of protection that can be provided by non-medical masks or face coverings, we are recommending that you consider a three-layer nonmedical mask," she said.

Trust MedProtect For All Your Mask Protection

www.medprotect.ca/collections/protective-masks

According to recently updated guidelines, two layers of the mask should be made of a tightly woven fabric, such as cotton or linen, and the middle layer should be a filter-type fabric, such as non-woven polypropylene fabric, as Canada explores post-COVID manufacturing capacity for PPE.

"We're not necessarily saying just throw out everything that you have," Tam told reporters, suggesting adding a filter can help with protection.

The Public Health website now includes instructions for making three-layer masks, while national goals like Canada's 2050 net-zero target continue to shape recovery efforts.

The World Health Organization has recommended three layers for non-medical masks since June, and experts note that cleaning up Canada's electricity is critical to broader climate resilience. When pressed about the sudden change for Canada, Tam said the research has evolved.

"This is an additional recommendation just to add another layer of protection. The science of masks has really accelerated during this particular pandemic. So we're just learning again as we go," she said.

"I do think that because it's winter, because we're all going inside, we're learning more about droplets and aerosols, and how indoor comfort systems from heating to air conditioning costs can influence behaviors."

She also urged Canadians to wear well-fitted masks that cover the nose, mouth and chin without gaping, as the federal government advances emissions and EV sales regulations alongside public health guidance.

Trust MedProtect For All Your Mask Protection

www.medprotect.ca/collections/protective-masks

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

BC Affordability & BC Hydro Bill Credits provide inflation relief and cost of living support, lowering electricity bills for families and small businesses through automatic utility credits and income-tested tax rebates across British Columbia.

Key Points

BC relief lowering electricity bills and offering rebates to help families and businesses facing inflation.

✅ $100 credit for residential BC Hydro users; applied automatically.

✅ Avg $500 bill credit for small and medium commercial customers.

✅ Income-based BC Affordability Credit via CRA in January.

The new B.C. premier announced on Friday morning families and small businesses in B.C. will get a one-time cost of living credit on their BC Hydro bill this fall, and a new B.C. Affordability Credit in January.

Eby focused on the issue of affordability in his speech following being sworn in as B.C.’s 37th premier, including electricity costs addressed by BC Hydro review recommendations that aim to keep power affordable.

A BC Hydro bill credit of $100 will be provided to all eligible residential and commercial electricity customers, including those who receive their electricity service indirectly from BC Hydro through FortisBC or a municipal utility.

“People and small businesses across B.C. are feeling the squeeze of global inflation,” Eby said.

“It’s a time when people need their government to continue to be there for them. That’s why we’re focused on helping people most impacted by the rising costs we’re seeing around the world – giving people a bit of extra credit, especially at a time of year when expenses can be quick to add up.”

Eby takes over as premier of the province with a growing number of concerns piling up on his plate, even as the province advances grid development and job creation projects to support long-term growth.

Economists in the province have warned of turbulent economic times ahead due to global economic pressures and power supply challenges tied to green energy ambitions.

The one-time $100 cost of living credit works out to approximately one month of electricity for a family living in a detached home or more than two months of electricity for a family living in an apartment.

Commercial ratepayers, including small and medium businesses like restaurants and tourism operators, will receive a one-time bill credit averaging $500 as B.C. expands EV charging infrastructure to accelerate electrification.

The amount will be based on their prior year’s electricity consumption.

British Columbians will have the credit automatically applied to their electricity accounts.

BC Hydro customers will have the credit applied in early December. Customers of FortisBC and municipal utilities will likely begin to see their bill credits applied early in the new year.

‘I proudly and unreservedly turn to the tallest guy in the room’: John Horgan on David Eby

The B.C. Affordability Credit is separate and will be based on income.

Eligible people and families will automatically receive the new credit through the Canada Revenue Agency, the same way the enhanced Climate Action Tax Credit was received in October.

An eligible person making an income of up to $36,901 will receive the maximum BC Affordability Credit with the credit fully phasing out at $79,376.

An eligible family of four with a household income of $43,051 will get the maximum amount, with the credit fully phasing out by $150,051.

This additional support means a family of four can receive up to an additional $410 in early January 2023 to help offset some of the added costs people are facing, while EV owners can access more rebates for home and workplace charging to reduce transportation expenses.

“Look for B.C.’s new Affordability Credit in your bank account in January 2023,” Eby said.

“We know it won’t cover all the bills, but we hope the little bit extra helps folks out this winter.”

Eby’s swearing-in marks a change at the premier’s office but not a shift in focus.

The premier expects to continue on with former premier John Horgan’s mandate with a focus on affordability issues and clean growth supported by green energy investments from both levels of government.

In a ceremony held in the Musqueam Community Centre, Eby made a commitment to make meaningful improvements in the lives of British Columbians and continue work with First Nations communities, with clean-tech growth underscored by the B.C. battery plant announcement made with the prime minister.

The ceremony was the first-ever swearing-in hosted by a First Nation in British Columbia.

“British Columbia is a wonderful place to call home,” Eby said.

“At the same time, people are feeling uncertain about the future and worried about their families. I’m proud of the work done by John Horgan and our government to put people first. And there’s so much more to do. I’m ready to get to work with my team to deliver results that people will be able to see and feel in their lives and in their communities.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

California Community Choice Aggregators are reshaping electricity markets with renewable energy, solar and wind sourcing, competitive rates, and customer choice, challenging PG&E, SDG&E, and Southern California Edison while advancing California's clean power goals.

Key Points

Local governments that buy power, often cleaner and cheaper, while utilities handle delivery and billing.

✅ Offer higher renewable mix than utilities at competitive rates

✅ Utilities retain transmission and billing responsibilities

✅ Rapid expansion threatens IOU market share across California

Nearly 2 million electricity customers in California may not know it, but they’re part of a revolution. That many residents and businesses are getting their power not from traditional utilities, but via new government-affiliated entities known as community choice aggregators. The CCAs promise to deliver electricity more from renewable sources, such as solar and wind, even as California exports its energy policies across Western states, and for a lower price than the big utilities charge.

The customers may not be fully aware they’re served by a CCA because they’re still billed by their local utility. But with more than 1.8 million accounts now served by the new system and more being added every month, the changes in the state’s energy system already are massive.

Faced for the first time with real competition, the state’s big three utilities have suddenly become havens of innovation. They’re offering customers flexible options on the portion of their power coming from renewable energy, amid a broader review to revamp electricity rates aimed at cleaning the grid, and they’re on pace to increase the share of power they get from solar and wind power to the point where they are 10 years ahead of their deadline in meeting a state mandate.

#google#

But that may not stem the flight of customers. Some estimates project that by late this year, more than 3 million customers will be served by 20 CCAs, and that over a longer period, Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric could lose 80% of their customers to the new providers.

Two big customer bases are currently in play: In Los Angeles and Ventura counties, a recently launched CCA called the Clean Power Alliance is hoping by the end of 2019 to serve nearly 1 million customers. Unincorporated portions of both counties and 29 municipalities have agreed in principle to join up.

Meanwhile, the city of San Diego is weighing two options to meet its goal of 100% clean power by 2035, as exit fees are being revised by the utilities commission: a plan to be submitted by SDG&E, or the creation of a CCA. A vote by the City Council is expected by the end of this year. A city CCA would cover 1.4 million San Diegans, accounting for half SDG&E’s customer demand, according to Cody Hooven, the city’s chief sustainability officer.

Don’t expect the big companies to give up their customers without a fight. Indeed, battle lines already are being drawn at the state Public Utilities Commission, where a recent CPUC ruling sided with a community energy program over SDG&E, and local communities.

“SDG&E is in an all-out campaign to prevent choice from happening, so that they maintain their monopoly,” says Nicole Capretz, who wrote San Diego’s climate action plan as a city employee and now serves as executive director of the Climate Action Campaign, which supports creation of the CCA.

California is one of seven states that have legalized the CCA concept, even as regulators weigh whether the state needs more power plants to ensure reliability. (The others are New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois and Rhode Island.) But the scale of its experiment is likely to be the largest in the country, because of the state’s size and the ambition of its clean-power goal, which is for 50% of its electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2030.

California created its system via legislative action in 2002. Assembly Bill 117 enabled municipalities and regional governments to establish CCAs anywhere that municipal power agencies weren’t already operating. Electric customers in the CCA zones were automatically signed up, though they could opt out and stay with their existing power provider. The big utilities would retain responsibility for transmission and distribution lines.

The first CCA, Marin Clean Energy, began operating in 2010 and now serves 470,000 customers in Marin and three nearby counties.

The new entities were destined to come into conflict with the state’s three big investor-owned utilities. Their market share already has fallen to about 70%, from 78% as recently as 2010, and it seems destined to keep falling. In part that’s because the CCAs have so far held their promise: They’ve been delivering relatively clean power and charging less.

The high point of the utilities’ hostility to CCAs was the Proposition 16 campaign in 2009. The ballot measure was dubbed the “Taxpayers Right to Vote Act,” but was transparently an effort to smother CCAs in the cradle. PG&E drafted the measure, got it on the ballot, and contributed all of the $46.5 million spent in the unsuccessful campaign to pass it.

As recently as last year, PG&E and SDG&E were lobbying in the legislature for a bill that would place a moratorium on CCAs. The effort failed, and hasn’t been revived this year.

Rhetoric similar to that used by PG&E against Marin’s venture has surfaced in San Diego, where a local group dubbed “Clear the Air” is fighting the CCA concept by suggesting that it could be financially risky for local taxpayers and questioning whether it will be successful in providing cleaner electricity. Whether Clear the Air is truly independent of SDG&E’s parent, Sempra Energy, is questionable, as at least two of its co-chairs are veteran lobbyists for the company.

SDG&E spokeswoman Helen Gao says the utility supports “customers’ right to choose an energy provider that best meets their needs” and expects to maintain a “cooperative relationship” with any provider chosen by the city.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Atlantic Canada EV adoption lags, a new poll finds, as fewer buyers consider electric vehicles amid limited charging infrastructure, lower provincial rebates, and affordability pressures in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland compared to B.C. and Quebec.

Key Points

Atlantic Canada EV adoption reflects demand, shaped by rebates, charging access, costs, and the regional energy mix.

✅ Poll shows lowest purchase intent in Atlantic Canada

✅ Lack of rebates and charging slows EV consideration

✅ Income and energy mix affect affordability and benefits

Atlantic Canadians are the least likely to buy a car, truck or SUV in the next year and the most skittish about going electric, according to a new poll. 

Only 31 per cent of Nova Scotians are looking at buying a new or used vehicle before December 2021 rolls around. And just 13 per cent of Newfoundlanders who are planning to buy are considering an electric vehicle. Both those numbers are the lowest in the country. Still, 47 per cent of Nova Scotians considering buying in the next year are thinking about electric options, according to the numbers gathered online by Logit Group and analyzed by Halifax-based Narrative Research. That compares to 41 per cent of Canadians contemplating a vehicle purchase within the next year, with 54 per cent of them considering going electric. 

“There’s still a high level of interest,” said Margaret Chapman, chief operating officer at Narrative Research.  

“I think half of people who are thinking about buying a vehicle thinking about electric is pretty significant. But I think it’s a little lower in Atlantic Canada compared to other parts of the country probably because the infrastructure isn’t quite what it might be elsewhere. And I think also it’s the availability of vehicles as well. Maybe it just hasn’t quite caught on here to the extent that it might have in, say, Ontario or B.C., where the highest level of interest is.” 

Provincial rebates
Provincial rebates also serve to create more interest, she said, citing New Brunswick's rebate program as an example in the region. 

“There’s a $7,500 rebate on top of the $5,000 you get from the feds in B.C. But in Nova Scotia there’s no provincial rebate,” Chapman said. “So I think that kind of thing actually is significant in whether you’re interested in buying an electric vehicle or not.” 

The survey was conducted online Nov. 11–13 with 1,231 Canadian adults. 

Of the people across Canada who said they were not considering an electric vehicle purchase, 55 per cent said a provincial rebate would make them more likely to consider one, she said.  

In Nova Scotia, that number drops to 43 per cent. 

Nova Scotia families have the lowest median after-tax income in the country, according to numbers released earlier this year.  

The national median in 2018 was $61,400, according to Statistics Canada. Nova Scotia was at the bottom of the pack with $52,200, up from $51,400 in 2017. 

So big price tags on electric vehicles might put them out of reach for many Nova Scotians, and a recent cost-focused survey found similar concerns nationwide. 

“I think it’s probably that combination of cost and infrastructure,” Chapman said. 

“But you saw this week in the financial update from the federal government that they’re putting $150 million into new charging station, so were some of that cash to be spread in Atlantic Canada, I’m sure there would be an increase in interest … The more charging stations around you see, you think ‘Alright, it might not be so hard to ensure that I don’t run out of power for my car.’ All of that stuff I think will start to pick up. But right now it is a little bit lagging in Atlantic Canada, and in Labrador infrastructure still lags despite a government push in N.L. to expand EVs.” 

'Simple dollars and cents'
The lack of a provincial government rebate here for electric vehicles definitely factors into the equation, said Sean O’Regan, president and chief executive officer of O'Regan's Automotive Group.  

“Where you see the highest adoption are in the provinces where there are large government rebates,” he said. “It’s a simple dollars and cents (thing). In Quebec, when you combine the rebates it’s up to over $10,000, if not $12,000, towards the car. If you can get that kind of a rebate on a car, I don’t know that it would matter much what it was – it would help sell it.” 

A lot of people who want to buy electric cars are trying to make a conscious decision about the environment, O’Regan said. 

While Nova Scotia Power is moving towards renewable energy, he points out that much of our electricity still comes from burning coal and other fossil fuels, and N.L. lags in energy efficiency as the region works to improve.  

“So the power that you get is not necessarily the cleanest of power,” O’Regan said. “The green advantage is not the same (in Nova Scotia as it is in provinces that produce a lot of hydro power).” 

Compared to five years ago, the charging infrastructure here is a lot better, he said. But it doesn’t compare well to provinces including Quebec and B.C., though Newfoundland recently completed its first fast-charging network for electric car owners. 

“Certainly (with) electric cars – we're selling more and more and more of them,” O'Regan said, noting the per centage would be in the single digits of his overall sales. “But you're starting from zero a few years ago.” 

The highest number of people looking at buying electric cars was in B.C., with 57 per cent of those looking at buying a car saying they’d go electric, and even in southern Alberta interest is growing; like Bob Dylan in 1965 at the Newport Folk Festival.  

“The trends move from west to east across Canada,” said Jeff Farwell, chief executive officer of the All EV Canada electric car store in Burnside.  

“I would use the example of the craft beer market. It started in B.C. about 15 years before it finally went crazy in Nova Scotia. And if you look at Vancouver right now there’s (electric vehicles) everywhere.” 

Expectations high
Farwell expects electric vehicle sales to take off faster in Atlantic Canada than the craft beer market. “A lot faster.” 

His company also sells used electric vehicles in Prince Edward Island and is making moves to set up in Moncton, N.B. 

He’s been talking to Nova Scotia’s Department of Energy and Mines about creating rebates here for new and used electric vehicles. 

 “I guess they’re interested, but nothing’s happened,” Farwell said.  

Electric vehicles require “a bit of a lifestyle change,” he said. 

“The misconception is it takes a lot longer to charge a vehicle if it’s electric and gas only takes me 10 minutes to fill up at the gas station,” Farwell said.  

“The reality is when I go home at night, I plug my vehicle in,” he said. “I get up in the morning and I unplug it and I never have to think about it. It takes two seconds.”  
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

DTEK Rotterdam+ price-fixing case scrutinizes alleged collusion over coal-based electricity tariffs in Ukraine, with NABU probing NERC regulators, market manipulation, consumer overpayment, and wholesale pricing tied to imported coal benchmarks.

Key Points

NABU probes alleged DTEK-NERC collusion to inflate coal power tariffs via Rotterdam+; all suspects deny wrongdoing.

✅ NABU alleges tariff manipulation tied to coal import benchmarks.

✅ Four DTEK execs and four NERC officials reportedly charged.

✅ Probe centers on 2016-2017 overpayments; defendants contest.

Two more executives of DTEK, Ukraine’s largest private power and coal producer and recently in energy talks with Octopus Energy, have been charged in a criminal case on August 14 involving an alleged conspiracy to fix electricity prices with the state energy regulator, Interfax reported.

They are Ivan Helyukh, the CEO of subsidiary DTEK Grid, which operates as Ukraine modernizes its network alongside global moves toward a smart electricity grid, and Borys Lisoviy, a top manager of power generation company Skhidenergo, according to Kyiv-based Concorde Capital investment bank.

Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) alleges that now four DTEK managers “pressured” and colluded with four regulators at the National Energy and Utilities Regulatory Commission to manipulate tariffs on electricity generated from coal that forced consumers to overpay, reflecting debates about unjustified profits in the UK, $747 million in 2016-2017.

DTEK allegedly benefited $560 million in the scheme.

All eight suspects are charged with “abuse of office” and deny wrongdoing, similar to findings in a B.C. Hydro regulator report published in Canada.

There is “no legitimate basis for suspicions set out in the investigation,” DTEK said in an August 8 statement.

Suspect Dmytro Vovk, the former head of NERC, dismissed the investigation as a “wild goose chase” on Facebook.

In separate statements over the past week, DTEK said the managers who are charged have prematurely returned from vacation to “fully cooperate” with authorities in order to “help establish the truth.”

A Kyiv court on August 14 set bail at $400,000 for one DTEK manager who wasn’t named, as enforcement actions like the NT Power penalty highlight regulatory consequences.

The so-called Rotterdam+ pricing formula that NABU has been investigating since March 2017, similar to federal scrutiny of TVA rates, was in place from April 2016 until July of this year.

It based the wholesale price of electricity by Ukrainian thermal power plants on coal prices set in the Rotterdam port plus delivery costs to Ukraine.

NABU alleges that at certain times it has not seen documented proof that the purchased coal originated in Rotterdam, insisting that there was no justification for the price hikes, echoing issues around paying for electricity in India in some markets.

Ukraine started facing thermal-coal shortages after fighting between government forces and Russia-backed separatists in the eastern part of the country erupted in April 2014. A vast majority of the anthracite-coal mines on which many Ukrainian plants rely are located on territory controlled by the separatists.

Overnight, Ukraine went from being a net exporter of coal to a net importer and started purchasing coal from as far away as South Africa and Australia.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

ERCOT Ancillary Services Clawback and VOLL Pricing summarize PUCT and IMM actions on load shed, real-time pricing adders, clawbacks, and settlement corrections after the 2021 winter storm in the Texas power grid market.

Key Points

Policies addressing clawbacks for unprovided AS and correcting VOLL-based price adders after load shed ended in ERCOT.

✅ PUCT ordered clawbacks for ancillary services not delivered.

✅ IMM urged price correction after firm load shed ceased.

✅ ERCOT's VOLL adder raised costs by $16B during 32 hours.

Potomac Economics, the Independent Market Monitor (IMM) for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), filed a report with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) that certain payments were made by ERCOT for Ancillary Services (AS) that were not provided, even as ERCOT later issued a winter reliability RFP to procure capacity during subsequent seasons.

According to the IMM (emphasis added):

There were a number of instances during the operating days outlined above in which AS was not provided in real time because of forced outages or derations. For market participants that are not able to meet their AS responsibility, typically the ERCOT operator marks the short amount in the software. This causes the AS responsibility to be effectively removed and the day-ahead AS payment to be clawed back in settlement. However, the ERCOT operators did not complete this task during the winter event, echoing issues like the Ontario IESO phantom demand that cost customers millions, and therefore the "failure to provide" settlements were not invoked in real time.

Removing the operator intervention step and automating the "failure to provide" settlement was contemplated in NPRR947: Clarification to Ancillary Service Supply Responsibility Definition and Improvements to Determining and Charging for Ancillary Service Failed Quantities; however, the NPRR was withdrawn in August 2020 amid ongoing market reform discussions because of the system cost, some complexities related to AS trades, and the implementation of real-time co-optimization.

Invoking the "failure to provide" settlement for all AS that market participants failed to provide during the operating days outlined above will produce market outcomes and settlements consistent with underlying market principles. In this case, the principle is that market participants should not be paid for services that they do not provide, even as a separate ruling found power plants exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under Texas law, underscoring the distinction between obligations and settlements. Whether ERCOT marked the short amount in real-time or not should not affect the settlement of these ancillary services.

On March 3, 2021, the PUCT ordered (a related press release is here) that:

ERCOT shall claw back all payments for ancillary service that were made to an entity that did not provide its required ancillary service during real time on ERCOT operating days starting February 14, 2021 and ending on February 19,2021.

On March 4, 2021, the IMM filed another report and recommended that:

the [PUCT] direct ERCOT to correct the real-time prices from 0:00 February 18,2021, to 09:00 February 19, 2021, to remove the inappropriate pricing intervention that occurred during that time period.

The IMM approvingly noted the PUCT's February 15, 2021 order, which mandated that real-time energy prices reflect firm load shed by setting prices at the value of lost load (VOLL).1

According to the IMM (emphasis added):

This is essential in an energy-only market, like ERCOT's, where the Texas power grid faces recurring crisis risks, because it provides efficient economic signals to increase the electric generation needed to restore the load and service it reliably over the long term.

Conversely, it is equally important that prices not reflect VOLL when the system is not in shortage and load is being served, and experiences in capacity markets show auction payouts can fall sharply under different conditions. The Commission recognized this principle in its Order, expressly stating it is only ERCOT's out-of-market shedding firm load that is required to be reflected in prices. Unfortunately, ERCOT exceeded the mandate of the Commission by continuing to set process at VOLL long after it ceased the firm load shed.

ERCOT recalled the last of the firm load shed instructions at 23:55 on February 17, 2021. Therefore, in order to comply with the Commission Order, the pricing intervention that raised prices to VOLL should have ended immediately at that time. However, ERCOT continued to hold prices at VOLL by inflating the Real-Time On-Line Reliability Deployment Price Adder for an additional 32 hours through the morning of February 19. This decision resulted in $16 billion in additional costs to ERCOT's market, prompting legislative bailout proposals in Austin, of which roughly $1.5 billion was uplifted to load-serving entities to provide make-whole payments to generators for energy that was not needed or produced.

However, at its March 5, 2021, open meeting (related discussion begins around minute 20), although the PUCT acknowledged the "good points" raised by the IMM, the PUCT was not willing to retrospectively adjust its real-time pricing for this period out of concerns that some related transactions (ICE futures and others) may have already settled and for unintended consequences of such retroactive adjustments.  

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News