Rule drafted for carbon trapping

Washington County solar farm incentives aim to steer projects to industrial sites with tax breaks, underground grid connections, decommissioning bonds, and wildlife corridors, balancing zoning, historic preservation, and Maryland renewable energy mandates.

Key Points

Policies steer solar to industrial sites with tax breaks, buried lines, and bonds, aligning with zoning and state goals.

✅ Tax breaks to favor rooftops and parking canopies

✅ Bury new grid lines to shift projects to industrial parks

✅ Require decommissioning bonds and wildlife corridors

Incentives for establishing solar farms at industrial spaces instead of on prime farmland are among the ideas the Washington County Planning Commission is recommending for the county to update its policies regarding solar farms.

Potential incentives would include tax breaks on solar equipment and requiring developers to put power-grid connections and line extensions underground, a move tied to grid upgrade cost debates in other regions, Planning Commission members said during a Monday meeting.

The tax break could make it more attractive for a developer to put a solar farm on a roof or over a parking lot, similar to California's building-solar requirement policies that favor rooftop generation, which could cost more than putting it on farmland, said Commission member Dave Kline, who works for FirstEnergy.

Requiring a company to bury new transmission lines could steer them to industrial or business parks where, theoretically, transmission lines are more readily available, Kline said Wednesday in a phone interview.

Chairman Clint Wiley suggested talking to industrial property owners to create a list of industrial sites that make sense for a solar site, which could generate extra income for the property owner.

Commission members also talked about requiring a wildlife corridor. Anne Arundel County requires such a corridor if a solar site is over 15 acres, according to Jill Baker, deputy director of planning and zoning. The solar site is broken into sections so animals such as deer can get through, she said.

However, that means the solar farm would take up more agricultural land, Commission member Jeremiah Weddle said. Weddle, a farmer, has repeatedly voiced concerns about solar farms using prime farmland.

County zoning law already states solar farms are prohibited in Rural Legacy Areas, Priority Preservation Areas, and within Antietam Overlay zones that preserve the Antietam National Battlefield viewshed. They also cannot be built on land with permanent preservation easements, Baker said.

However, a big reason county officials are looking to strengthen county policies for solar generating systems, or solar farms, is a recent court decision that ruled the Maryland Public Service Commission can preempt county zoning law when it comes to large solar farms.

County zoning law defines a solar energy generating system as a solar facility, with multiple solar arrays, tied into the power grid and whose primary purpose is to generate power to distribute and/or sell into the public utility grid rather than consuming that power on site.

The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled in July that the Public Service Commission can preempt local zoning regarding solar farms larger than 2 megawatts. But the ruling also stated local government is a "significant participant in the process" and the state commission must give "due consideration" to local zoning laws.

County officials are looking at recommendations for solar farms, whether they are over 2 megawatts or not.

Solar farms are a popular issue statewide, especially with Maryland solar subscriptions expanding, and were discussed at a recent Maryland Association of Counties meeting for planners, Planning and Zoning Director Stephen Goodrich said.

The thinking is the best way for counties to express their opinions about a solar project is to participate in the state commission's local public hearings, where issues like how solar owners are paid often arise, Goodrich said. Another popular idea is for the county to continue to follow its process, which requires a public hearing for a special exception to establish a solar farm. That will help the county form an opinion, on individual cases, to offer the state commission, he said.

Recommendations discussed by the Planning Commission include:

A break on personal property taxes, which is on equipment, including affordable battery storage that can firm output, to steer developers away from areas where the county doesn't want solar farms. The Board of County Commissioners have been split on tax-break agreements for solar farms, with a majority recently granting a few.

Protecting valuable historic sites.

Requiring a decommissioning bond for removing the equipment at the end of the solar farm's life. The bond is protection in case the company goes bankrupt. The county commissioners have been making such a bond a requirement when granting recent tax breaks.

Looking at allowing solar farms in stormwater-management areas.

Other counties, particularly in Western Maryland and on the Eastern Shore, are having issues with solar farms even as research to improve solar and wind advances, because land is cheaper and there are wide-open spaces, Goodrich said.

Many solar projects are being developed or proposed because state lawmakers passed legislation requiring 50% of electricity produced in the state to come from renewable sources by 2030, and a federal plan to expand solar is also shaping expectations. Of that 50%, 14.5% is to come from solar energy.

In Maryland, the average number of homes that can be powered by 1 megawatt of solar energy is about 110, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association's website.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Greengen Misfeasance Ruling details a B.C. Supreme Court decision awarding $10.125 million over wrongfully denied Crown land and water licence permits for a Fries Creek run-of-river hydro project under a BC Hydro contract.

Key Points

A B.C. Supreme Court ruling awarding $10.125M for wrongful denial of Crown land and water licences on Greengen's project.

✅ $10.125M damages for misfeasance in public office

✅ Denial of Crown land tenure and water licence permits

✅ Tied to Fries Creek run-of-river and BC Hydro EPA

A B.C. Supreme Court judge has ordered the provincial government to pay $10.125 million after it denied permits to a company that wanted to build a run-of-the river independent power project near Squamish.

In his Oct. 10 decision, Justice Kevin Loo said the plaintiff, Greengen Holdings Ltd., “lost an opportunity to achieve a completed and profitable hydro-electric project” after government representatives wrongfully exercised their legal authority, a transgression described in the ruling as “misfeasance,” with separate concerns reflected in an Ontario market gaming investigation reported elsewhere.

Between 2003 and 2009, the company sought to develop a hydro-electric project on and around Fries Creek, which sits opposite the Brackendale neighbourhood on the other side of the Squamish River. To do so, Greengen Holdings Ltd. required a water licence from the Minister of the Environment and tenure over Crown land from the Minister of Agriculture.

After a lengthy process involving extensive communications between Greengen and various provincial and other ministries and regulatory agencies, the permits were denied, according to Loo. Both decisions cited impacts on Squamish Nation cultural sites that could not be mitigated.

Elsewhere, an Indigenous-owned project in James Bay proceeded despite repeated denials, underscoring varied approaches to community participation.

40-year electricity plan relied on Crown land
The case dates back to December 2005, when BC Hydro issued an open call for power with Greengen. The company submitted a tender several months later.

On July 26, 2006, BC Hydro awarded Greengen an energy purchase agreement, amid evolving LNG electricity demand across the province, under which Greengen would be entitled to supply electricity at a fixed price for 40 years.

Unlike conventional hydroelectric projects, such as new BC generating stations recently commissioned, which store large volumes of water in reservoirs, and in so doing flood large tracts of land, a run of the river project often requires little or no water storage. Instead, from a high elevation, they divert water from a stream or river channel.

Water is then sent into a pressured pipeline known as a penstock, and later passed through turbines to generate electricity, Loo explained, as utilities pursue long-term plans like the Hydro-Québec strategy to reduce fossil fuel reliance. The system returns water to the original stream or river, or into another body of water. 

The project called for most of that infrastructure to be built on Crown land, according to the ruling.

All sides seemed to support the project
In early 2005, company principle Terry Sonderhoff discussed the Fries Creek project in a preliminary meeting with Squamish Nation Chief Ian Campbell.

“Mr. Sonderhoff testified that Chief Campbell seemed supportive of the project at the time,” Loo said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

2040 Energy Outlook projects a shifting energy mix as renewables scale, EV adoption accelerates, and IEA forecasts plateauing oil demand alongside rising natural gas, highlighting policy, efficiency, and decarbonization trends that shape global consumption.

Key Points

A data-driven view of future energy mix, covering renewables, fossil fuels, EVs, oil demand, and policy impacts.

✅ Renewables reach 16-30% by 2040, higher with strong policy support.

✅ Fossil fuels remain dominant, with oil flat and natural gas rising.

✅ EV share surges, cutting oil use; efficiency curbs demand growth.

Which is more plausible: flying taxis, wind turbine arrays stretching miles into the ocean, and a solar roof on every house--or a scorched-earth, flooded post-Apocalyptic world? 

We have no way of peeking into the future, but we can certainly imagine it. There is plenty of information about where the world is headed and regardless of how reliable this information is—or isn’t—we never stop wondering. Will the energy world of 20 years from now be better or worse than the world we live in now? 

The answer may very well lie in the observable trends.

A Growing Population

The global population is growing, and it will continue to grow in the next two decades. This will drive a steady growth in energy demand, at about 1 percent per year, according to the International Energy Agency.

This modest rate of growth is good news for all who are concerned about the future of the planet. Parts of the world are trying to reduce their energy consumption, and this should have a positive effect on the carbon footprint of humanity. The energy thirst of most parts of the world will continue growing, however, hence the overall growth.

The world’s population is currently growing at a rate of a little over 1 percent annually. This rate of growth has been slowing since its peak in the 1960s and forecasts suggest that it will continue to slow. Growth in energy demand, on the other hand, may at some point stop moving in tune with population growth trends as affluence in some parts of the world grows. The richer people get, the more energy they need. So, to the big question: where will this energy come from?

The Rise of Renewables

For all the headline space they have been claiming, it may come as a disappointing surprise to many that renewable energy, excluding hydropower, to date accounts for just 14 percent of the global primary energy mix. 

Certainly, adoption of solar and wind energy has been growing in leaps and bounds, with their global share doubling in five years in many markets, but unless governments around the world commit a lot more money and effort to renewable energy, by 2040, solar and wind’s share in the energy mix will still only rise to about 16 to 17 percent. That’s according to the only comprehensive report on the future of energy that collates data from all the leading energy authorities in the world, by non-profit Resources for the Future.

The growth in renewables adoption, however, would be a lot more impressive if governments do make serious commitments. Under that scenario, the share of renewables will double to over 30 percent by 2040, echoing milestones like over 30% of global electricity reached recently: that’s the median rate of all authoritative forecasts. Amongst them, the adoption rates of renewables vary between 15 percent and 61 percent by 2040.

Even the most bullish of the forecasts on renewables is still far below the 100-percent renewable future many would like to fantasize about, although BNEF’s 50% by 2050 outlook points to what could be possible in the power sector. 

But in 2040, most of the world’s energy will still come from fossil fuels.

EV Energy

Here, forecasters are more optimistic. Again, there is a wide variation between forecasts, but in each and every one of them the share of electric vehicles on the world’s roads in 2040 is a lot higher than the meagre 1 percent of the global car fleet EVs constitute today.
Related: Gas Prices Languish As Storage Falls To Near-Record Lows

Government policy will be the key, as U.S. progress toward 30% wind and solar shows how policy steers the power mix that EVs ultimately depend on. Bans of internal combustion engines will go a long way toward boosting EV adoption, which is why some forecasters expect electric cars to come to account for more than 50 percent of cars on the road in 2040. Others, however, are more guarded in their forecasts, seeing their share of the global fleet at between 16 percent and a little over 40 percent.

Many pin their hopes for a less emission-intensive future on electric cars. Indeed, as the number of EVs rises, they displace ICE vehicles and, respectively, the emission-causing oil that fuels for ICE cars are made from.  It should be a no brainer that the more EVs we drive, the less emissions we produce. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily the case: China is the world’s biggest EV market, and its solar PV expansion has been rapid, it has the most EVs—including passenger cars and buses—but it is also one of the biggest emitters.

Still, by 2040, if the more optimistic forecasts come true, the world will be consuming less oil than it is consuming now: anywhere from 1.2 million bpd to 20 million bpd less, the latter case envisaging an all-electric global fleet in 2040. 

This Ain’t Your Daddy’s Oil

No, it ain’t. It’s your grandchildren’s oil, for good or for bad. The vision of an oil-free world where renewable power is both abundant and cheap enough to replace all the ways in which crude oil and natural gas are used will in 2040 still be just that--a vision, with practical U.S. grid constraints underscoring the challenges. Even the most optimistic energy scenarios for two decades from now see them as the dominant source of energy, with forecasts ranging between 60 percent and 79 percent. While these extremes are both below the over-80 percent share fossil fuels have in the world’s energy mix, they are well above 50 percent, and in the U.S. renewables are projected to reach about one-fourth of electricity soon, even as fossil fuels remain foundational.

Still, there is good news. Fuel efficiency alone will reduce oil demand significantly by 2040. In fact, according to the IEA, demand will plateau at a little over 100 million bpd by the mid-2030s. Combined with the influx of EVs many expect, the world of 20 years from now may indeed be consuming a lot less oil than the world of today. It will, however, likely consume a lot more natural gas. There is simply no way around fossil fuels, not yet. Unless a miracle of politics happens (complete with a ripple effect that will cost millions of people their jobs) in 2040 we will be as dependent on oil and gas as we are but we will hopefully breathe cleaner air.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

France Nuclear Heatwave Restrictions signal reduced nuclear power along the Rhone River as EDF imposes output limits due to high water temperatures, grid needs, with minimal price impact amid strong solar and exports.

Key Points

Temporary EDF output limits at Rhone River reactors due to hot water, protecting ecosystems and grid reliability.

✅ EDF expects halved output at Bugey and Saint Alban.

✅ Cuts align with water temperature and discharge rules.

✅ Weekend midday curtailments offset by solar supply.

The high temperature warning has come early this year but will affect fewer nuclear power plants. High temperatures could halve nuclear power production, with river temperature limits at plants along France's Rhone River this week. 

Output restrictions are expected at two nuclear plants in eastern France due to high temperature forecasts, nuclear operator EDF said. It comes several days ahead of a similar warning that was made last year but will affect fewer plants, and follows a period when power demand has held firm during lockdowns across Europe.

The hot weather is likely to halve the available power supply from the 3.6 GW Bugey plant from 13 July and the 2.6 GW Saint Alban plant from 16 July, the operator said.

However, production will be at least 1.8 GW at Bugey and 1.3 GW at Saint Alban to meet grid requirements, and may change according to grid needs, the operator said.

Kpler analyst Emeric de Vigan said the restrictions were likely to have little effect on output in practice. Cuts are likely only at the weekend or midday when solar output was at its peak so the impact on power prices would be slim.

He said the situation would need monitoring in the coming weeks, however, noting it was unusually early in the summer for nuclear-powered France to see such restrictions imposed.

Water temperatures at the Bugey plant already eclipsed the initial threshold for restrictions on 9 July, as European power hits records during the heatwave. They are currently forecast to peak next week and then drop again, Refinitiv data showed.

"France is currently net exporting large amounts of power – and, despite a nuclear power dispute with Germany, single nuclear units' supply restrictions will not have the same effect as last year," Refinitiv analyst Nathalie Gerl said.

The Garonne River in southern France has the highest potential for critical levels of warming, but its Golfech plant is currently offline for maintenance until mid-August, as Europe faces nuclear losses, the data showed.

"(The restrictions were) to be expected and it will probably occur more often," Greenpeace campaigner Roger Spautz said.

"The authorities must stick to existing regulations for water discharges. Otherwise, the ecosystems will be even more affected," he added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

Ontario Hydro Crisis highlights soaring electricity rates, costly subsidies, nuclear refurbishments, and stalled renewables in Ontario. Policy missteps, weak planning, and rising natural gas emissions burden ratepayers while energy efficiency and storage remain underused.

Key Points

High power costs and subsidies from policy errors, nuclear refurbishments, stalled efficiency and renewables in Ontario.

✅ $5.6B yearly subsidy masks electricity rates and deficits

✅ Nuclear refurbishments embed rising costs for decades

✅ Efficiency, storage, and DERs stalled amid weak planning

By Mark Winfield

While the troubled Site C and Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam projects in B.C. and Newfoundland and Labrador have drawn a great deal of national attention over the past few months, Ontario has quietly been having a hydro crisis of its own.

One of the central promises in the 2018 platform of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party was to “clean up the hydro mess,” and then-PC leader Doug Ford vowed to fire Hydro One's leadership as part of that effort. There certainly is a mess, with the costs of subsidies taken from general provincial revenues to artificially lower hydro rates nearing $7 billion annually. That is a level approaching the province’s total pre-COVID-19 annual deficit. After only two years, that will also exceed total expected cost overruns of the Site C and Muskrat Falls projects, currently estimated at $12 billion ($6 billion each).

There is no doubt that Doug Ford’s government inherited a significant mess around the province’s electricity system from the previous Liberal governments of former premiers Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. But the Ford government has also demonstrated a remarkable capacity for undoing the things its predecessors had managed to get right while doubling down on their mistakes.

The Liberals did have some significant achievements. Most notably: coal-fired electricity generation, which constituted 25 per cent of the province’s electricity supply in the early 2000s, was phased out in 2014. The phaseout dramatically improved air quality in the province. There was also a significant growth in renewable energy production. From  virtually zero in 2003, the province installed 4,500 MW of wind-powered generation, and 450 MW of solar photovoltaic by 2018, a total capacity more than double that of the Sir Adam Beck Generating Stations at Niagara Falls.

At the same time, public concerns over rising hydro rates flowing from a major reconstruction of the province’s electricity system from 2003 onwards became a central political issue in the province. But rather than reconsider the role of the key drivers of the continuing rate increases – namely the massively expensive and risky refurbishments of the Darlington and Bruce nuclear facilities, the Liberals adopted a financially ruinous Fair Hydro Plan. The central feature of the 2017 plan was a short-term 25 per cent reduction in hydro rates, financed by removing the provincial portion of the HST from hydro bills, and by extending the amortization period for capital projects within the system. The total cost of the plan in terms of lost revenues and financing costs has been estimated in excess of $40 billion over 29 years, with the burden largely falling on future ratepayers and taxpayers.

Decision-making around the electricity system became deeply politicized, and a secret cabinet forecast of soaring prices intensified public debate across Ontario. Legislation adopted by the Wynne government in 2016 eliminated the requirement for the development of system plans to be subject to any form of meaningful regulatory oversight or review. Instead, the system was guided through directives from the provincial cabinet. Major investments like the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments proceeded without meaningful, public, external reviews of their feasibility, costs or alternatives.

The Ford government proceeded to add more layers to these troubles. The province’s relatively comprehensive framework for energy efficiency was effectively dismantled in March, 2019, with little meaningful replacement. That was despite strong evidence that energy efficiency offered the most cost-effective strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and electricity costs.

The Ford government basically retained the Fair Hydro Plan and promised further rate reductions, later tabling legislation to lower electricity rates as well. To its credit, the government did take steps to clarify real costs of the plan. Last year, these were revealed to amount to a de facto $5.6 billion-per-year subsidy coming from general revenues, and rising. That constituted the major portion of the province’s $7.4 billion pre-COVID-19 deficit. The financial hole was deepened further through November’s financial statement, with the addition of a further $1.3 billion subsidy to commercial and industrial consumers. The numbers can only get worse as the costs of the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments become embedded more fully into electricity rates.

The government also quietly dispensed with the last public vestige of an energy planning framework, relieving itself of the requirement to produce a Long-Term Energy Plan every three years. The next plan would normally have been due next month, in February.

Even the gains from the 2014 phaseout of coal-fired electricity are at risk. Major increases are projected in emissions of greenhouse gases, smog-causing nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from natural gas-fired power plants as the plants are run to cover electricity needs during the Bruce and Darlington refurbishments over the next decade. These developments could erode as much as 40 per cent of the improvements in air quality and greenhouse gas emission gained through the coal phaseout.

The province’s activities around renewable energy, energy storage and distributed energy resources are at a standstill, with exception of a few experimental “sandbox” projects, while other jurisdictions face profound electricity-sector change and adapt. Globally, these technologies are seen as the leading edge of energy-system development and decarbonization. Ontario seems to have chosen to make itself an energy innovation wasteland instead.

The overall result is a system with little or no space for innovation that is embedding ever-higher costs while trying to disguise those costs at enormous expense to the provincial treasury and still failing to provide effective relief to low-income electricity consumers.

The decline in electricity demand associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, along with the introduction of a temporary recovery rate for electricity, gives the province an opportunity to step back and consider its next steps with the electricity system. A phaseout of the Fair Hydro Plan electricity-rate reduction and its replacement with a more cost-effective strategy of targeted relief aimed at those most heavily burdened by rising hydro rates, particularly rural and low-income consumers, as reconnection efforts for nonpayment have underscored the hardship faced by many households, would be a good place to start.

Next, the province needs to conduct a comprehensive, public review of electricity options available to it, including additional renewables – the costs of which have fallen dramatically over the past decade – distributed energy resources, hydro imports from Quebec and energy efficiency before proceeding with further nuclear refurbishments.

In the longer term, a transparent, evidence-based process for electricity system planning needs to be established – one that is subject to substantive public and regulatory oversight and review. Finally, the province needs to establish a new organization to be called Energy Efficiency Ontario to revive its efforts around energy efficiency, developing a comprehensive energy-efficiency strategy for the province, covering electricity and natural gas use, and addressing the needs of marginalized communities.

Without these kinds of steps, the province seems destined to continue to lurch from contradictory decision after contradictory decision as the economic and environmental costs of the system’s existing trajectory continue to rise.

Mark Winfield is a professor of environmental studies at York University and co-chair of the university’s Sustainable Energy Initiative.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News