California power grid cleared for renewable power

Ontario Electricity Rate Changes lower OEB Regulated Price Plan costs, adjust Time-of-Use winter hours and tiered thresholds, and modify the Ontario Electricity Rebate, affecting off-peak, mid-peak, and on-peak pricing for households and small businesses.

Key Points

OEB updates lowering RPP prices, shifting TOU hours, adjusting tiers, and modifying the Ontario Electricity Rebate.

✅ Winter TOU: Off-peak 7 p.m.-7 a.m.; weekends, holidays all day.

✅ Tiered pricing adds 400 kWh at lower rate for residential users.

✅ Ontario Electricity Rebate falls to 11.7% from 17% on Nov 1.

Electricity rates are about to change for consumers across Ontario.

On November 1, households and small businesses will see their electricity rates go down under the Ontario Energy Board's (OEB) Regulated Price Plan framework.

Customer's on the OEB's tiered pricing plan will also see their bills lowered on November 1, a shift from the 2021 increase when fixed pricing ended, as winter time-of-use hours and the seasonal change in the killowatt-hour threshold take effect.

Off-peak time-of-use hours will run from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. during weekdays, including the ultra-low overnight rates option for some customers, and all day on weekends and holidays. On-peak hours will be from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays, and mid-peak hours from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays.

The winter-tier threshold provides residential customers with an extra 400 kilowatt-hours per month at a lower price during the colder weather, alongside the off-peak price freeze in effect.

The Ontario Electricity Rebate - a pre-tax credit that shows up at the bottom of electricity bills - will also see changes as a hydro rate change takes effect on November 1. Starting next month, the rebate will drop from 17 per cent to 11.7 per cent.

For a typical residential customer, the credit will decrease electricity bills by about $13.91 per month, according to the OEB.

Under the board's winter disconnection ban, electricity providers can't turn off a residential customer's power between November 15, 2022 and April 30, 2023 for failing to pay, and earlier pandemic relief included a fixed COVID-19 hydro rate for customers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

New York faces soaring energy bills as utilities seek record rate hikes, aging grid infrastructure demands upgrades, and federal renewable policies shift. Consumers struggle with affordability, late payments, and rising costs of delivery and energy supply across the state.

Why is New York Facing Soaring Energy Bills?

New York faces soaring energy bills because utilities are raising rates to cover the costs of grid upgrades, inflation, and policy-driven changes in energy supply.

✅ Utilities seek double-digit rate hikes across the state

✅ Aging infrastructure and storm repairs increase delivery costs

✅ Federal policies and gas dependence push energy prices higher

New Yorkers are bracing for another wave of energy bill increases as utilities seek record-high rate hikes and policy changes ripple through the state’s power system. Electric bills in New York are the highest they’ve been in over a decade, and more than a million households are now at least two months behind on payments, a sign of pandemic energy insecurity that continues to strain budgets, owing utilities nearly $2 billion.

Record numbers of households have had their electricity or gas shut off this year — more than 61,000 in May alone — despite pandemic shut-off suspensions that had offered temporary relief, the highest the Public Utility Law Project (PULP) has ever recorded. “This August was the group’s busiest month ever,” said Laurie Wheelock, PULP’s executive director, citing a surge in calls to its hotline. “The top concern on people’s minds: rate hikes.”

Utilities across the state are pushing for significant price increases, citing aging infrastructure, the need for climate adaptation, and higher operating costs, as California regulators face calls for action amid rising bills. “We used to see single-digit rate hikes and now we see double-digit rate hikes,” said Jessica Azulay, executive director of the Alliance for a Green Economy. “That’s a new normal that is unacceptable.”

Several utilities have requested delivery rate increases of 25 percent or more, with some proposals as high as 39 percent. Upstate utilities NYSEG and RG&E are seeking to raise electric and gas bills by about $33 a month, although regulators are unlikely to approve the full amount.

The companies argue the hikes are needed “to pay for rebuilding an aging grid and expanding its capacity to meet residents’ and businesses’ service demands,” including storm repairs. They also claim the plan would create more than 1,000 jobs.

James Denn, a spokesperson for the Public Service Commission (PSC), said much of the cost pressure stems from “inflation, higher interest rates, supply chain disruptions, the global push to upgrade electrical infrastructure, and, most recently, the rising risk and uncertainty from tariffs,” trends reflected in U.S. electricity price data over the past two years.

While some have blamed New York’s clean-energy transition, a PSC report found that state climate policies account for only 5 to 9.5 percent of the average household’s electric bill, or approximately $10 to $12 per month. The bulk of the increases still come from traditional spending on infrastructure, storm resilience, and system expansion.

On the supply side, costs are rising too. President Donald Trump’s recent policies have threatened renewable-energy investment nationwide, even as states’ renewable ambitions carry significant costs, potentially adding to New York’s woes. His July “megabill” phases out a 30 percent federal tax credit for solar and wind unless projects begin construction by mid-2026. Industry experts warn that the changes could make renewables “more expensive to build” and “increase reliance on gas.”

“It just means more expensive power,” said Marguerite Wells of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York.

The state estimates Trump’s policy shifts could cost New York $60 billion in lost renewable investment. With fewer clean-energy projects moving forward, gas — which already supplies roughly half of the state’s electricity — will remain the dominant source, tying energy prices to volatile global markets and the kinds of price drivers seen in California in recent years.

Governor Kathy Hochul has called affordability “our greatest short-term challenge,” while consumer advocates are demanding reforms to reduce utility profits and overhaul “rate design,” and to strengthen protections such as the emergency disconnection moratorium that applies during declared emergencies.

“There is definitely a groundswell of concern,” Wheelock said. “We go to meetings and we’re getting questions about rate design, like, ‘What is the revenue decoupling mechanism?’ Never had that question before.”

Related Articles

• USA Electricity News

Thermoelectric Materials convert waste heat into electricity via the Seebeck effect; quantum computations and semiconductors accelerate discovery, enabling clean energy, higher efficiency, and scalable heat-to-power conversion from abundant, non-toxic, cost-effective compounds.

Key Points

Thermoelectric materials turn waste heat into electricity via the Seebeck effect, improving energy efficiency.

✅ Convert waste heat to electricity via the Seebeck effect

✅ Quantum computations rapidly identify high-performance candidates

✅ Target efficient, low-thermal-conductivity, non-toxic, abundant compounds

The need to transition to clean energy is apparent, urgent and inescapable. We must limit Earth’s rising temperature to within 1.5 C to avoid the worst effects of climate change — an especially daunting challenge in the face of the steadily increasing global demand for energy and the need for reliable clean power, with concepts that can generate electricity at night now being explored worldwide.

Part of the answer is using energy more efficiently. More than 72 per cent of all energy produced worldwide is lost in the form of heat, and advances in turning thermal energy into electricity could recover some of it. For example, the engine in a car uses only about 30 per cent of the gasoline it burns to move the car. The remainder is dissipated as heat.

Recovering even a tiny fraction of that lost energy would have a tremendous impact on climate change. Thermoelectric materials, which convert wasted heat into useful electricity, can help, especially as researchers pursue low-cost heat-to-electricity materials for scalable deployment.

Until recently, the identification of these materials had been slow. My colleagues and I have used quantum computations — a computer-based modelling approach to predict materials’ properties — to speed up that process and identify more than 500 thermoelectric materials that could convert excess heat to electricity, and help improve energy efficiency.

Making great strides towards broad applications
The transformation of heat into electrical energy by thermoelectric materials is based on the “Seebeck effect.” In 1826, German physicist Thomas Johann Seebeck observed that exposing the ends of joined pieces of dissimilar metals to different temperatures generated a magnetic field, which was later recognized to be caused by an electric current.

Shortly after his discovery, metallic thermoelectric generators were fabricated to convert heat from gas burners into an electric current. But, as it turned out, metals exhibit only a low Seebeck effect — they are not very efficient at converting heat into electricity.

In 1929, the Russian scientist Abraham Ioffe revolutionized the field of thermoelectricity. He observed that semiconductors — materials whose ability to conduct electricity falls between that of metals (like copper) and insulators (like glass) — exhibit a significantly higher Seebeck effect than metals, boosting thermoelectric efficiency 40-fold, from 0.1 per cent to four per cent.

This discovery led to the development of the first widely used thermoelectric generator, the Russian lamp — a kerosene lamp that heated a thermoelectric material to power a radio.

Are we there yet?
Today, thermoelectric applications range from energy generation in space probes to cooling devices in portable refrigerators, and include emerging thin-film waste-heat harvesters for electronics as well. For example, space explorations are powered by radioisotope thermoelectric generators, converting the heat from naturally decaying plutonium into electricity. In the movie The Martian, for example, a box of plutonium saved the life of the character played by Matt Damon, by keeping him warm on Mars.

In the 2015 film, The Martian, astronaut Mark Watney (Matt Damon) digs up a buried thermoelectric generator to use the power source as a heater.

Despite this vast diversity of applications, wide-scale commercialization of thermoelectric materials is still limited by their low efficiency.

What’s holding them back? Two key factors must be considered: the conductive properties of the materials, and their ability to maintain a temperature difference, as seen in nighttime electricity from cold concepts, which makes it possible to generate electricity.

The best thermoelectric material would have the electronic properties of semiconductors and the poor heat conduction of glass. But this unique combination of properties is not found in naturally occurring materials. We have to engineer them, drawing on advances such as carbon nanotube energy harvesters to guide design choices.

Searching for a needle in a haystack
In the past decade, new strategies to engineer thermoelectric materials have emerged due to an enhanced understanding of their underlying physics. In a recent study in Nature Materials, researchers from Seoul National University, Aachen University and Northwestern University reported they had engineered a material called tin selenide with the highest thermoelectric performance to date, nearly twice that of 20 years ago. But it took them nearly a decade to optimize it.

To speed up the discovery process, my colleagues and I have used quantum calculations to search for new thermoelectric candidates with high efficiencies. We searched a database containing thousands of materials to look for those that would have high electronic qualities and low levels of heat conduction, based on their chemical and physical properties. These insights helped us find the best materials to synthesize and test, and calculate their thermoelectric efficiency.

We are almost at the point where thermoelectric materials can be widely applied, but first we need to develop much more efficient materials. With so many possibilities and variables, finding the way forward is like searching for a tiny needle in an enormous haystack.

Just as a metal detector can zero in on a needle in a haystack, quantum computations can accelerate the discovery of efficient thermoelectric materials. Such calculations can accurately predict electron and heat conduction (including the Seebeck effect) for thousands of materials and unveil the previously hidden and highly complex interactions between those properties, which can influence a material’s efficiency.

Large-scale applications will require themoelectric materials that are inexpensive, non-toxic and abundant. Lead and tellurium are found in today’s thermoelectric materials, but their cost and negative environmental impact make them good targets for replacement.

Quantum calculations can be applied in a way to search for specific sets of materials using parameters such as scarcity, cost and efficiency, and insights can even inform exploratory devices that generate electricity out of thin air in parallel fields. Although those calculations can reveal optimum thermoelectric materials, synthesizing the materials with the desired properties remains a challenge.

A multi-institutional effort involving government-run laboratories and universities in the United States, Canada and Europe has revealed more than 500 previously unexplored materials with high predicted thermoelectric efficiency. My colleagues and I are currently investigating the thermoelectric performance of those materials in experiments, and have already discovered new sources of high thermoelectric efficiency.

Those initial results strongly suggest that further quantum computations can pinpoint the most efficient combinations of materials to make clean energy from wasted heat and the avert the catastrophe that looms over our planet.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Duke Energy zero-coal 2050 plan outlines a decarbonized energy mix, aligning with Paris goals, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, driven by investor pressure, shifting to natural gas, extending nuclear power, and phasing out coal.

Key Points

An investor-driven scenario to end coal by 2050, shift to natural gas, extend nuclear plants, and manage climate risk.

✅ Eliminates coal from the generation mix by 2050

✅ Prioritizes natural gas transitions without CCS breakthroughs

✅ Extends nuclear plant licenses to limit carbon emissions

One of America’s largest utility companies, Duke Energy, is set to release a report later this month that sketches a drastically changed electricity mix in a carbon-constrained future.

The big picture: Duke is the latest energy company to commit to releasing a report about climate change in response to investor pressure, echoing shifts such as Europe's oil majors going electric across the sector, conveyed by non-binding but symbolically important shareholder resolutions. Duke provides electricity to more than seven million customers in the Carolinas, the Midwest and Florida.

Gritty details: The report is expected to find that coal, currently 33% of Duke’s mix, gone entirely from its portfolio by 2050 in a future scenario where the world has taken steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and where global coal-fired electricity use is falling markedly, to a level consistent with keeping global temperatures from rising two degrees Celsius. That’s the big ambition of the 2015 Paris climate deal, but the current commitments aren’t close to reaching that.

What they're saying: “What’s difficult about this is we are trying to overlay what we understand currently about technology,” Lynn Good, Duke CEO, told Axios in an interview on the sidelines of a major energy conference here.

She went on to say that this scenario of zero coal by 2050 doesn’t assume any breakthroughs in technology that captures carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. “We don’t see that technology today, and we need to make economic decisions to get those units moving and replacing them with natural gas.”

Good also stressed the benefits of its several nuclear power plants, highlighting the role of sustaining U.S. nuclear power in decarbonization, which emit no carbon emissions. She said Duke isn’t considering investing in new nuclear plants, but plans to seek federal relicensing of current plants.

“If I turn them off, the resource that would replace them today is natural gas, so carbon will go up,” Good said. “Our objective is to continue to keep those plants as long as possible.”

What’s next: A spokesman said the other details of their 2050 scenario estimates will be available when the report is officially released by month’s end.

Axios reports that Duke Energy will release a report later this month that detail the utility's efforts to mitigate climate change risks and plan carbon-free electricity investments across its operations. The report includes a scenario that eliminates coal entirely from the company's power mix by 2050. Coal currently makes up about a third of Duke's generation.

Duke CEO Lynn Good told the news outlet the scenario ending coal-fired generation assumes no technological advances in emissions capture, seemingly leaving open the possibility.

Last year, a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded one in four of the remaining operating coal-fired plants in the U.S. are slated for closure or conversion to natural gas, amid falling power-sector carbon emissions across the country. Duke's report is expected to be released by the end of the month.

Duke's report on its carbon plans comes at the behest of shareholders, a trend utility companies have seen growing among investors who are increasingly concerned about companies' sustainability and their financial exposure to climate policy.

Last year, a majority of shareholders of Pennsylvania utility PPL Corp. called on company management to publish a report on how climate change policies and technological innovations will affect the company's bottom line. Almost 60% of shareholders voted in favor of the non-binding proposal.

The vote, reportedly a first for the power sector, followed a similar decision by shareholders of Occidental Petroleum, which was supported by about 66% of shareholders.

Duke's Good told Axios that right now the utility does not see the coal technology on the horizon that would keep it operating plants. “We don't see that technology today, and we need to make economic decisions to get those units moving and replacing them with natural gas," Good said. However, it does not mean the utility is making near-term efforts to erase coal from its power mix. However, some utilities are taking those steps as they prepare for en energy landscape with more carbon regulations.

In addition to the 25% of coal plants heading for closure or conversion, the UCS report also said that another 17% of the nation’s operating coal plants are uneconomic compared with natural gas-fired generation, and could face retirement soon. But there is plenty of ongoing research into "clean coal" possibilities, and the federal government has expressed an interest in smaller, modular coal units.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Ontario Starlink Contract Cancellation underscores rising tariffs, trade tensions, and retaliation, as SpaceX's Elon Musk loses a rural broadband deal; Ontario pivots to procurement bans, energy resilience, and nuclear power to boost grid independence.

Key Points

Ontario ended a C$100M Starlink deal over U.S. tariffs, prompting a shift to rural broadband alternatives.

✅ Triggered by U.S. tariffs; Ontario adopts retaliatory procurement bans.

✅ Ends plan to connect 15,000 rural homes and businesses with broadband.

✅ Signals push for energy resilience, nuclear power, and grid independence.

In a decisive move, Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced the cancellation of a C$100 million contract with Elon Musk's Starlink, a subsidiary of SpaceX, in direct response to U.S. President Donald Trump's imposition of tariffs on Canadian imports. This action underscores the escalating trade tensions between Canada and the United States, a theme highlighted during Ford's Washington meeting on energy tariffs earlier this month, and highlights Ontario's efforts to safeguard its economic interests.

The now-terminated agreement, established in November, aimed to provide high-speed internet access to 15,000 homes and businesses in Ontario's remote areas. Premier Ford's decision to "rip up" the contract signifies a broader strategy to distance the province from U.S.-based companies amid the current trade dispute. He emphasized, "Ontario won't do business with people hell-bent on destroying our economy."

This move is part of a series of retaliatory measures by Canadian provinces, including Ford's threat to cut electricity exports to the U.S., following President Trump's announcement of a 25% tariff on nearly all Canadian imports, excluding oil, which faces a 10% surcharge. These tariffs, set to take effect imminently, have prompted concerns about potential economic downturns in Canada. In response, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared that Canada would impose 25% tariffs on C$155 billion worth of U.S. goods, aiming to exert pressure on the U.S. administration to reconsider its stance.

Premier Ford's actions reflect a broader sentiment of economic nationalism, as he also announced a ban on American companies from provincial contracts until the U.S. tariffs are lifted. He highlighted that Ontario's government and its agencies allocate $30 billion annually on procurement, and reiterated his earlier vow to fire the Hydro One CEO and board as part of broader reforms aimed at efficiency.

The cancellation of the Starlink contract raises concerns about the future of internet connectivity in Ontario's rural regions. The original deal with Starlink was seen as a significant step toward bridging the digital divide, offering high-speed internet to underserved communities. With the contract's termination, the province faces the challenge of identifying alternative solutions to fulfill this critical need.

Beyond the immediate implications of the Starlink contract cancellation, Ontario is confronting broader challenges in ensuring the resilience and independence of its energy infrastructure. The province's reliance on external entities for critical services, such as internet connectivity and energy, has come under scrutiny, as Canada's electricity exports are at risk amid ongoing trade tensions and policy uncertainty.

Premier Ford has expressed a commitment to expanding Ontario's capacity to generate nuclear power as a means to bolster energy self-sufficiency. While this strategy aims to reduce dependence on external energy sources, it presents its own set of challenges that critics argue require cleaning up Ontario's hydro mess before new commitments proceed. Developing nuclear infrastructure requires substantial investment, rigorous safety protocols, and long-term planning. Moreover, the integration of nuclear power into the province's energy mix necessitates careful consideration of environmental impacts and public acceptance.

The concept of "Trump-proofing" Ontario's electricity grid involves creating a robust and self-reliant energy system capable of withstanding external political and economic pressures. Achieving this goal entails diversifying energy sources, including building on Ontario's electricity deal with Quebec to strengthen interties, investing in renewable energy technologies, and enhancing grid infrastructure to ensure stability and resilience.

However, the path to energy independence is fraught with complexities. Balancing the immediate need for reliable energy with long-term sustainability goals requires nuanced policy decisions, including Ontario's Supreme Court challenge to the global adjustment fee and related regulatory reviews to clarify cost impacts. Additionally, fostering collaboration between government entities, private sector stakeholders, and the public is essential to navigate the multifaceted challenges associated with overhauling the province's energy framework.

Ontario's recent actions, including the cancellation of the Starlink contract, underscore the province's proactive stance in safeguarding its economic and infrastructural interests amid evolving geopolitical dynamics. While such measures reflect a commitment to self-reliance, they also highlight the intricate challenges inherent in reducing dependence on external entities. As Ontario charts its course toward a more autonomous future, strategic planning, investment in sustainable technologies, and collaborative policymaking will be pivotal in achieving long-term resilience and prosperity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News