Duke changes tree-trimming policies

Ottawa Electricity Consumption Drop reflects COVID-19 impacts, with Hydro Ottawa and IESO reporting 10-12% lower demand, delayed morning peaks, and shifted weekend peak to 4 p.m., alongside provincial time-of-use rate relief.

Key Points

A 10-12% decline in Ottawa's electricity demand during COVID-19, with later morning peaks and weekend peak at 4 p.m.

✅ Weekday demand down 11%; weekends down 10% vs April 2019.

✅ Morning peak delayed about 4 hours; 6 a.m. usage down 17%.

✅ Weekend peak moved from 7 p.m. to 4 p.m.; rate relief ongoing.

Ottawa residents may be spending more time at home, with residential electricity use up even as the city’s overall energy use has dropped during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hydro Ottawa says there was a 10-to-11 per cent drop in electricity consumption in April, with the biggest decline in electricity usage happening early in the morning, a pattern echoed by BC Hydro findings in its province.

Statistics provided to CTV News Ottawa show average hourly energy consumption in the City of Ottawa dropped 11 per cent during weekdays, mirroring Manitoba Hydro trends reported during the pandemic, and a 10 per cent decline in electricity consumption on weekends.

The drop in energy consumption came as many businesses in Ottawa closed their doors due to the COVID-19 measures and physical distancing guidelines.

“Based on our internal analysis, when comparing April 2020 to April 2019, Hydro Ottawa observed a lower, flatter rise in energy use in the morning, with peak demand delayed by approximately four hours.” Hydro Ottawa said in a statement to CTV News Ottawa.

“Morning routines appear to have the largest difference in energy consumption, most likely as a result of a collective slower pace to start the day as people are staying home.”

Hydro Ottawa says overall, there was an 11 per cent average hourly reduction in energy use on weekdays in April 2020, compared to April 2019. The biggest difference was the 6 a.m. hour, with a 17 per cent decrease.

On weekends, the average electricity usage dropped 10 per cent in April, compared to April 2019. The biggest difference was between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m., with a 13 per cent drop in hydro usage.

Hydro Ottawa says weekday peak continues to be at 4 p.m., while on weekends the peak has shifted from 7 p.m. before the pandemic to 4 p.m. now, though Hydro One has not cut peak rates for self-isolating customers.

The Independent Electricity System Operator says across Ontario, there has been a 10 to 12 per cent drop in energy consumption during the pandemic, a trend reflected in province-wide demand data that is the equivalent to half the demand of Toronto.

The Ontario Government has provided emergency electricity rate relief during the COVID-19 pandemic. Residential and small business consumers on time-of-use pricing, and later ultra-low overnight options, will continue to pay one price no matter what time of day the electricity is consumed until the end of May.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Site C 500 kV transmission lines strengthen the BC Hydro grid, linking the new substation and Peace Canyon via a 75 kilometre right-of-way to deliver clean energy, with 400 towers built and both circuits energized.

Key Points

High-voltage lines connecting Site C substation to the BC Hydro grid, delivering clean energy via Peace Canyon.

✅ Two 75 km circuits between Site C and Peace Canyon

✅ Connect new 500 kV substation to BC Hydro grid

✅ Over 400 towers built along existing right-of-way

The second and final 500 kilovolt, 75 kilometre transmission line on the Site C project, which has faced stability questions in recent years, has been completed and energized.

With this milestone, the work to connect the new Site C substation to the BC Hydro grid, amid treaty rights litigation that has at times shaped schedules, is complete. Once the Site C project begins generating electricity, much like when the Maritime Link first power flowed between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, the transmission lines will help deliver clean energy to the rest of the province.

The two 75 kilometre transmission lines run along an existing right-of-way between Site C and the Peace Canyon generating station, a route that has seen community concerns from some northerners. The project’s first 500 kilovolt, 75 kilometre transmission line – along with the Site C substation – were both completed and energized in the fall of 2020.

BC Hydro awarded the Site C transmission line construction contract to Allteck Line Contractors Inc. (now Allteck Limited Partnership) in 2018. Since construction started on this part of the project in summer 2018, crews have built more than 400 towers and strung lines, even as other interties like the Manitoba-Minnesota line have faced scheduling uncertainty, over a total of 150 kilometres.

The two transmission lines are a major component of the Site C project, comparable to initiatives such as the New England Clean Power Link in scale, which also consists of the new 500 kilovolt substation and expanding the existing Peace Canyon 500 kilovolt gas-insulated switchgear to incorporate the two new 500 kilovolt transmission line terminals.

Work to complete three other 500 kilovolt transmission lines that will span one kilometre between the Site C generating station and Site C substation, similar to milestones on the Maritime Link project, is still underway. This work is expected to be complete in 2023.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

UK Net Zero Policy Delay shifts EV sales ban to 2035, eases boiler phase-outs, keeps ZEV mandate, backs North Sea oil and gas, accelerates onshore wind and grid upgrades while targeting 2050 emissions goals.

Key Points

Delay moves EV and heating targets to 2035, tweaks mandates, and shifts energy policy, keeping the 2050 net zero goal.

✅ EV sales ban shifts to 2035; ZEV mandate trajectory unchanged

✅ Heat pump grants rise to £7,500; boiler phase-out eased

✅ North Sea oil, onshore wind, grid and nuclear plans advance

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said he would delay targets for changing cars and domestic heating to maintain the consent of the British people in the switch to net zero as part of the global energy transition under way.

Sunak said Britain was still committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050, similar to Canada's race to net zero goals, and denied watering down its climate targets.

Here are some of the current emissions targets for Britain's top polluting sectors and how the announcement impacts them.

TRANSPORTATION
Transport accounts for more than a third (34%) of Britain's total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the most of any sector.

Sunak announced a delay to introducing a ban on new petrol and diesel cars and vans. It will now come into force in 2035 rather than in 2030.

There were more than 1.1 million electric cars in use on UK roads as of April - up by more than half from the previous year to account for roughly one in every 32 cars, according to the country's auto industry trade body.

The current 2030 target was introduced in November 2020 as a central part of then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson's plans for a "green revolution". As recently as Monday, transport minister Mark Harper restated government support for the policy.

Britain’s independent climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee, estimated a 2030 phase out of petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles could save up to 110 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions compared with a 2035 phase out.

ohnson's policy already allowed for the continued sale of hybrid cars and vans that can drive long stretches without emitting carbon until 2035.

The transition is governed by a zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate, a shift echoed by New Zealand's electricity transition debates, which means manufacturers must ensure an increasing proportion of the vehicles they sell in the UK are electric.

The current proposal is for 22% of a car manufacturer's sales to be electric in 2024, rising incrementally each year to 100% in 2035.

The government said on Wednesday that all sales of new cars from 2035 would still be zero emission.

Sunak said that proposals that would govern how many passengers people should have in a car, or proposals for new taxes to discourage flying, would be scrapped.

RESIDENTIAL
Residential emissions, the bulk of which come from heating, make up around 17% of the country's CO2 emissions.

The government has a target to reduce Britain's energy consumption from buildings and industry by 15% by 2030, and had set a target to phase out installing new and replacement gas boilers from 2035, as the UK moves towards heat pumps, amid an IEA report on Canada's power needs noting more electricity will be required.

Sunak said people would have more time to transition, and the government said that off-gas-grid homes could continue to install oil and liquefied petroleum gas boilers until 2035, rather than being phased out from 2026.

However, his announcements that the government would not force anyone to rip out an existing boiler and that people would only have to make the switch when replacing one from 2035 restated existing policy.

He also said there would be an exemption so some households would never have to switch, but the government would increase an upgrade scheme that gives people cash to replace their boilers by 50% to 7,500 pounds ($9,296.25).

Currently almost 80% of British homes are heated by gas boilers. In 2022, 72,000 heat pumps were installed. The government had set a target of 600,000 heat pump installations per year by 2028.

A study for Scottish Power and WWF UK in June found that 6 million homes would need to be better insulated by 2030 to meet the government's target to reduce household energy consumption, but current policies are only expected to deliver 1.1 million.

The study, conducted by Frontier Economics, added that 1.5 million new homes would still need heat pumps installed by 2030.

Sunak said that the government would subsidise people who wanted to make their homes energy efficient but never force a household to do it.

The government also said it was scrapping policies that would force landlords to upgrade the energy efficiency of their properties.

ENERGY
The energy sector itself is a big emitter of greenhouse gases, contributing around a quarter of Britain's emissions, though the UK carbon tax on coal has driven substantial cuts in coal-fired electricity in recent years.

In July, Britain committed to granting hundreds of licences for North Sea oil and gas extraction as part of efforts to become more energy independent.

Sunak said he would not ban new oil and gas in the North Sea, and that future carbon budgets for governments would have to be considered alongside the plans to meet them.

He said the government would shortly bring forward new plans for energy infrastructure to improve Britain's grid, including the UK energy plan, while speeding up planning.

Offshore wind power developers warned earlier this month that Britain's climate goals could be at risk, even as efforts like cleaning up Canada's electricity highlight the importance of power-sector decarbonization, after a subsidy auction for new renewable energy projects did not attract any investment in those planned off British coasts.

Britain is aiming to develop 50 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind capacity by 2030, up from around 14 GW now.

Sunak highlighted that Britain is lifting a ban on onshore wind, investing in carbon capture and building new nuclear power stations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Clean Energy Tax Incentives could expand under Democratic proposals, including ITC, PTC, and EV tax credits, boosting renewable energy, energy storage, and grid modernization within a broader infrastructure package influenced by Green New Deal goals.

Key Points

Federal incentives like ITC, PTC, and EV credits that cut costs and speed renewables, storage, and grid upgrades.

✅ Proposes permanence for ITC, PTC, and EV tax credits

✅ Could accelerate solar, wind, storage, and grid upgrades

✅ Passage depends on bipartisan infrastructure compromise

The 115th U.S. Congress has not even adjourned for the winter, and already a newly resurgent Democratic Party is making demands that reflect its majority status in the U.S. House come January.

Climate appears to be near the top of the list. Last Thursday, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the Democratic Leader in the Senate, sent a letter to President Trump demanding that any infrastructure package taken up in 2019 include “policies and funding to transition to a clean energy economy and mitigate the risks that the United States is already facing due to climate change.”

And in a list of policies that Schumer says should be included, the top item is “permanent tax incentives for domestic production of clean electricity and storage, energy efficient homes and commercial buildings, electric vehicles, and modernizing the electric grid.”

In concrete terms, this could mean an extension of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar and energy storage, the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind and the federal electric vehicle (EV) tax credit program as well.

Pressure from the Left

This strong statement on climate change, clean energy and infrastructure investment comes as at least 30 incoming members of the U.S. House of Representatives have signed onto a call for the creation of a committee to explore a “Green New Deal” and to move the nation to 100% renewable energy by 2030.*

It also comes as Schumer has come under fire by activists for rumors that he plans to replace Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) with coal state Democrat Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) as the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

As such, one possible way to read these moves is that centrist leaders like Schumer are responding to pressure from an energized and newly elected Left wing of the Democratic Party. It is notable that Schumer’s program includes many of the aims of the Green New Deal, while avoiding any explicit use of that phrase.

Implications of a potential ITC extension

The details of levels and timelines are important here, particularly for the ITC.

The ITC was set to expire at the end of 2016, but was extended in legislative horse-trading at the end of 2015 to a schedule where it remains at 30% through the end of 2019 and then steps down for the next three years, and disappears entirely for residential projects. Since that extension the IRS has issued guidance around the use of co-located energy storage, as well as setting a standard under which PV projects can claim the ITC for the year that they begin construction.

This language around construction means that projects can start work in 2019, complete in 2023 and still claim the 30% ITC, and this may be why we at pv magazine USA are seeing an unprecedented boom in project pipelines across the United States.

Of course, if the ITC were to become permanent some of those projects would be pushed out to later years. But as we saw in 2016, despite an extension of the ITC many projects were still completed before the deadline, leading to the largest volume of PV installed in the United States in any one year to date.

This means that if the ITC were extended by the end of 2020, we could see the same thing all over again – a boom in projects created by the expected sunset, and then after a slight lull a continuation of growth.

Or it is possible that a combination of raw economics, increased investor and utility interest, and accelerating renewable energy mandates will cause solar growth rates to continue every year, and that any changes in the ITC will only be a bump against a larger trend.

While the basis for expiration of the EV tax credit is the number of vehicles sold, not any year, both the battery storage and EV industries, which many see at an inflection point, could see similar effects if the ITC and EV tax credits are made permanent.

Will consensus be reached?

It is also unclear that any such infrastructure package will be taken up by Republicans, or that both parties will be able to come to a compromise on this issue. While the U.S. Congress passed an infrastructure bill in 2017, given the sharp and growing differences between the two parties, and divergent trade approaches such as the 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs, it is not clear that they will be able to come to a meaningful compromise during the next two years.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

SM-1A Nuclear Plant Decommissioning details the US Army Corps of Engineers' removal of the Fort Greely reactor, Cold War facility dismantling, environmental monitoring, remote-site power history, and timeline to 2026 under a deactivated nuclear program.

Key Points

Army Corps plan to dismantle Fort Greely's SM-1A reactor and complete decommissioning of remaining systems by 2026.

✅ Built for remote Arctic radar support during the Cold War

✅ High costs beat diesel; program later deemed impractical

✅ Reactor parts removed; residuals monitored; removal by 2026

The US Army Corps of Engineers has begun decommissioning Alaska’s only nuclear power plant, SM-1A, which is located at Fort Greely, even as new US reactors continue to take shape nationwide. The $17m plant closed in 1972 after ten years of sporadic operation. It was out of commission from 1967 to 1969 for extensive repairs. Much of has already been dismantled and sent for disposal, and the rest, which is encased in concrete, is now to be removed.

The plant was built as part of an experimental programme to determine whether nuclear facilities, akin to next-generation nuclear concepts, could be built and operated at remote sites more cheaply than diesel-fuelled plants.

"The main approach was to reduce significant fuel-transportation costs by having a nuclear reactor that could operate for long terms, a concept echoed in the NuScale SMR safety evaluation process, with just one nuclear core," Brian Hearty said. Hearty manages the Army Corps of Engineers’ Deactivated Nuclear Power Plant Program.

#google#

He said the Army built SM-1A in 1962 hoping to provide power reliably at remote Arctic radar sites, where in similarly isolated regions today new US coal plants may still be considered, intended to detect incoming missiles from the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. He added that the programme worked but not as well as Pentagon officials had hoped. While SM-1A could be built and operated in a cold and remote location, its upfront costs were much higher than anticipated, and it costs more to maintain than a diesel power plant. Moreover, the programme became irrelevant because of advances in Soviet rocket science and the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Hearty said the reactor was partially dismantled soon after it was shut down. “All of the fuel in the reactor core was removed and shipped back to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) for them to either reprocess or dispose of,” he noted. “The highly activated control and absorber rods were also removed and shipped back to the AEC.”

The SM-1A plant produced 1.8MWe and 20MWt, including steam, which was used to heat the post. Because that part of the system was still needed, Army officials removed most of the nuclear-power system and linked the heat and steam components to a diesel-fired boiler. However, several parts of the nuclear system remained, including the reactor pressure vessel and reactor coolant pumps. “Those were either kept in place, or they were cut off and laid down in the tall vapour-containment building there,” Hearty said. “And then they were grouted and concreted in place.” The Corps of Engineers wants to remove all that remains of the plant, but it is as yet unclear whether that will be feasible.

Meanwhile, monitoring for radioactivity around the facility shows that it remains at acceptable levels. “It would be safe to say there’s no threat to human health in the environment,” said Brenda Barber, project manager for the decommissioning. Work is still in its early stages and is due to be completed in 2026 at the earliest. Barber said the Corps awarded the $4.6m contract in December to a Virginia-based firm to develop a long-range plan for the project, similar in scope to large reactor refurbishment efforts elsewhere. Among other things, this will help officials determine how much of the SM-1A will remain after it’s decommissioned. “There will still be buildings there,” she said. “There will still be components of some of the old structure there that may likely remain.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News