India aims for 20,000 nuclear megawatts by 2020

OPG Small Modular Reactors advance clean energy with advanced nuclear, baseload power, renewables integration, and grid reliability; factory built, scalable, and cost effective to support Ontario energy security and net zero goals.

Key Points

Factory built nuclear units delivering reliable, low carbon power to support Ontario's grid, renewables, climate goals.

✅ Factory built modules cut costs and shorten schedules

✅ Provides baseload power to balance wind and solar

✅ Enhances grid reliability with advanced safety and waste reduction

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is at the forefront of Canada’s energy transformation, demonstrating a robust commitment to sustainable energy solutions. One of the most promising avenues under exploration is the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), as OPG broke ground on the first SMR at Darlington to launch this next phase. These innovative technologies represent a significant leap forward in the quest for reliable, clean, and cost-effective energy generation, aligning with Ontario’s ambitious climate goals and energy security needs.

Understanding Small Modular Reactors

Small Modular Reactors are advanced nuclear power plants that are designed to be smaller in size and capacity compared to traditional nuclear reactors. Typically generating up to 300 megawatts of electricity, SMRs can be constructed in factories and transported to their installation sites, offering flexibility and scalability that larger reactors do not provide. This modular approach reduces construction time and costs, making them an appealing option for meeting energy demands.

One of the key advantages of SMRs is their ability to provide baseload power—energy that is consistently available—while simultaneously supporting intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar. As Ontario continues to increase its reliance on renewables, SMRs could play a crucial role in ensuring that the energy supply remains stable and secure.

OPG’s Initiative

In its commitment to advancing clean energy technologies, OPG has been a strong advocate for the adoption of SMRs. The province of Ontario has announced plans to develop three additional small modular reactors, part of its plans for four Darlington SMRs that would further enhance the region’s energy portfolio. This initiative aligns with both provincial and federal climate objectives, and reflects a collaborative provincial push on nuclear innovation to accelerate clean energy.

The deployment of SMRs in Ontario is particularly strategic, given the province’s existing nuclear infrastructure, including the continued operation of Pickering NGS that supports grid reliability. OPG operates a significant portion of Ontario’s nuclear fleet, and leveraging this existing expertise can facilitate the integration of SMRs into the energy mix. By building on established operational frameworks, OPG can ensure that new reactors are deployed safely and efficiently.

Economic and Environmental Benefits

The introduction of SMRs is expected to bring substantial economic benefits to Ontario. The construction and operation of these reactors will create jobs, including work associated with the Pickering B refurbishment across the province, stimulate local economies, and foster innovation in nuclear technology. Additionally, SMRs have the potential to attract investment from both domestic and international stakeholders, positioning Ontario as a leader in advanced nuclear technology.

From an environmental perspective, SMRs are designed with enhanced safety features and lower waste production compared to traditional reactors, complementing life-extension measures at Pickering that bolster system reliability. They can significantly contribute to Ontario’s goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. By providing a reliable source of clean energy, SMRs will help mitigate the impacts of climate change while supporting the province's transition to a sustainable energy future.

Community Engagement and Collaboration

Recognizing the importance of community acceptance and stakeholder engagement, OPG is committed to an open dialogue with local communities and Indigenous groups. This collaboration is essential to addressing concerns and ensuring that the deployment of SMRs is aligned with the values and priorities of the residents of Ontario. By fostering a transparent process, OPG aims to build trust and support for this innovative energy solution.

Moreover, the development of SMRs will involve partnerships with various stakeholders, including government agencies, research institutions, and private industry, such as the OPG-TVA partnership to advance new nuclear technology. These collaborations will not only enhance the technical aspects of SMR deployment but also ensure that Ontario can capitalize on shared expertise and resources.

Looking Ahead

As Ontario Power Generation moves forward with plans for three additional Small Modular Reactors, the province stands at a critical juncture in its energy evolution. The integration of SMRs into Ontario’s energy landscape promises a sustainable, reliable, and economically viable solution to meet growing energy demands while addressing climate change challenges.

With the support of government initiatives, community collaboration, and continued innovation in nuclear technology, Ontario is poised to become a leader in the advancement of Small Modular Reactors. The successful implementation of these projects could serve as a model for other jurisdictions seeking to transition to cleaner energy sources, highlighting the role of nuclear power in a balanced and sustainable energy future.

In conclusion, OPG's commitment to developing Small Modular Reactors not only reinforces Ontario’s energy security but also demonstrates a proactive approach to addressing the pressing challenges of climate change and environmental sustainability. The future of energy in Ontario looks promising, driven by innovation and a commitment to clean energy solutions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Electricity Rate Cap stays despite carbon tax repeal, keeping the Regulated Rate Option at 6.8 cents/kWh. Levy funds cover market gaps as the UCP reviews NDP policies to maintain affordable utility bills.

Key Points

Program capping RRO power at 6.8 cents/kWh, using levy funds to offset market prices while the UCP reviews policy.

✅ RRO cap fixed at 6.8 cents/kWh for eligible customers

✅ Levy funds pay generators when market prices exceed the cap

✅ UCP reviewing NDP policies to ensure affordable rates

Alberta's carbon tax has been cancelled, but a consumer price cap on electricity — which the levy pays for — is staying in place for now.

June electricity rates are due out on Monday, about four days after the new UCP government did away with the carbon charge on natural gas and vehicle fuel.

Part of the levy's revenue was earmarked by the previous NDP government to keep power prices at or below 6.8 cents per kilowatt hour under new electricity rules set by the province.

"The Regulated Rate Option cap of 6.8 cents/kWh was implemented by the previous government and currently remains in effect. We are reviewing all policies put in place by the former government and will make decisions that ensure more affordable electricity rates for job-creators and Albertans," said a spokesperson for Alberta's energy ministry in an emailed statement.

Albertans with regulated rate contracts and all City of Medicine Hat utility customers only pay that amount or less, though some Alberta ratepayers have faced deferral-related arrears.

If the actual market price rises above that, the difference is paid to generators directly from levy funds, a buffer that matters as experts warn prices are set to soar later this year.

The government has paid more than $55 million to utilities over the past year ending in March 2019, due to that electricity price cap being in place.

Alberta Energy says the price gap program will continue, at least for the time being, amid electricity policy changes being considered.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Georgia Cities Clean Energy IRP Coalition unites Savannah, Atlanta, Decatur, and Athens-Clarke to shape Georgia Power's Integrated Resource Plan, accelerating renewables, energy efficiency, community solar, and coal retirements through Georgia Public Service Commission hearings.

Key Points

Georgia cities working to steer Georgia Power's IRP toward renewables, energy efficiency, and community solar.

✅ Targets coal retirements and doubling renewables by 2035

✅ Advocates data access, transparency, and energy efficiency

✅ Seeks affordable community solar options for low-income customers

Savannah is among several Georgia cities that have led the charge forward in recent years to push for clean energy. Now, several of the state's largest municipalities are banding together to demand action from Georgia's largest energy provider.

Hearings regarding Georgia Power's Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) happen every three years, but this year for the first time the cities of Savannah, Decatur, Atlanta and Athens-Clarke and DeKalb counties were at the table.

"It's pretty unprecedented. It's such an important opportunity to get to represent ourselves and our citizens," said City of Savannah Energy Analyst Alicia Brown, the Savannah representative for the Georgia Coalition for Local Governments.

The IRP, which essentially maps out how the company will use its various forms of energy over the next 20 years was filed with the Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC) in January, the 200-page IRP outlines Georgia Power's plans to shutter nearly all Georgia Power-controlled coal units, similar to Tucson Electric Power's coal exit timelines elsewhere, which could begin later this year.

The company is also planning to double its renewable energy generation by 2035. The IRP also outlines plans for several programs, including an Income-Qualified Community Solar Pilot, reflecting momentum for community energy programs in other states as well.

During the hearings the coalition, alongside the other groups, had the ability to question Georgia Power officials about the plan to include the proposed increase per kilowatt for the company's Simple Solar program, Behind-the-Meter Solar program study and various other components, amid debates over solar strategy in the South that could impact lower income customers.

"The established and open IRP process is central to effective, long-term energy planning in Georgia and is part of our commitment to 2.7 million customers to deliver clean, safe, reliable and affordable energy. In continuing our longstanding relationship with the City of Savannah, we welcome their interest and participation in the IRP process," John Kraft, Georgia Power spokesman said in an email.

Brown said the coalition's areas of interest fall into three categories: energy efficiency and demand response, data access and transparency and renewable energy for citizens as well as the governments in the coalition.

"We have these renewable goals and just the way the current regulations are set, the way the current laws are on the books, and developments like consumer choice in California show how policy shifts can reshape utility markets, it's very challenging for us to meet those renewable energy goals without Georgia Power setting up programs that are workable for us," she said.

The city of Savannah is already taking action locally to reduce carbon emissions and move toward clean and renewable energy through the 100% Savannah Clean Energy Plan, which was adopted by Savannah City Council in December.

The plan aims to achieve 100% renewable electricity community-wide by 2035 and 100% renewable energy for all energy needs by 2050.

Council previously approved the 100% Clean Energy Resolution needed to develop the plan in March 2020, making Savannah the fifth city in the state to pledge to pursue a lower carbon future to fight climate change.

The final plan includes 45 strategies that fall into five categories: energy efficiency; renewable energy; transportation and mobility; community and economic development; and education and engagement.

Brown said the education and engagement component is central to the plan, but the pandemic has hindered community education and awareness efforts, and utilities have warned customers about pandemic-related scams that complicate outreach, something the city hopes to catapult in the coming weeks.

"With the 100% Savannah resolution passing right before the pandemic, we haven't had as many opportunities to raise awareness about the initiative and to educate the public about clean energy as we would like. This transition will present a lot of opportunities for our communities, but only if people know that they are there to be taken," she said.

"... We also want to engage the community so that they feel like they are developing this vision for a healthy, prosperous, clean community alongside us. It's not just us telling them, 'we're going to have a clean energy future and it's going to look like this,' but really helping them to develop and realize a collective vision for what 100% Savannah should be."

The final round of IRP hearings are scheduled for next month. Those hearings will allow the coalition and other groups to put witnesses on the stand who will make the case for why Georgia Power's IRP should be different, Brown said.

In June, Georgia Power, following a June bill reduction for customers, will have a chance to offer rebuttal testimony and will again be subject to cross examination. Shortly after those hearings, the parties will join together for the settlement process, a sort of compromise on the plan that the commission will vote on toward the beginning of July.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Solar ITC Impact on U.S. Wind frames how a 30% solar investment tax credit could undercut wind PTC economics, shift corporate procurement, and, without transmission and storage, slow onshore builds despite offshore wind momentum.

Key Points

It is how a solar ITC extension may curb U.S. wind growth absent PTC parity, transmission, storage, and offshore backing.

✅ ITC at 30% risks shifting corporate procurement to solar.

✅ Post-PTC wind faces grid, transmission, and curtailment headwinds.

✅ Offshore wind, storage pairing, TOU demand could offset.

The booming U.S. wind industry, amid a wind power surge, faces an uncertain future in the 2020s. Few factors are more important than the fate of the solar ITC.

An extension of the solar investment tax credit (ITC) at its 30 percent value would be “devastating” to the future U.S. wind market, according to a new Wood Mackenzie report.

The U.S. is on track to add a record 14.6 gigawatts of new wind capacity in 2020, despite Covid-19 impacts, and nearly 39 gigawatts during a three-year installation boom from 2019 to 2021, according to Wood Mackenzie’s 2019 North America Wind Power Outlook.

But the market’s trajectory begins to look highly uncertain from the early 2020s onward, and solar is one of the main reasons why.

Since the dawn of the modern American renewables market, the wind and solar sectors have largely been allies on the national stage, benefiting from many of the same favorable government plans and sharing big-picture goals. Until recently, wind and solar companies rarely found themselves in direct competition.

But the picture is changing as solar catches up to wind on cost and the grid penetration of renewables surges. What was once a vague alliance between the two fastest growing renewables technologies could morph into a serious rivalry.

While many project developers are now active in both sectors, including NextEra Energy Resources, Invenergy and EDF, the country’s thriving base of wind manufacturers could face tougher days ahead.

The ITC's inherent advantage

At this point, wind remains solar’s bigger sibling in many ways.

The U.S. has nearly 100 gigawatts of installed wind capacity today, compared to around 67 gigawatts of solar. With their substantially higher capacity factors, wind farms generated four times more power for the U.S. grid last year than utility-scale solar plants, for a combined wind-solar share of 8.2 percent, according to government figures, even as renewables are projected to reach one-fourth of U.S. electricity generation. (Distributed PV systems further add to solar’s contribution.)

But it's long been clear that wind would lose its edge at some point. The annual solar market now regularly tops wind. The cost of solar energy is falling more rapidly, and appears to have more runway for further reduction. Solar’s inherent generation pattern is more valuable in many markets, delivering power during peak-demand hours, while the wind often blows strongest at night.

And then there’s the matter of the solar ITC.

In 2015, both wind and solar secured historic multi-year extensions to their main federal subsidies. The extensions gave both industries the longest period of policy clarity they’ve ever enjoyed, setting in motion a tidal wave of installations set to crest over the next few years.

Even back in 2015, however, it was clear that solar got the better deal in Washington, D.C.

While the wind production tax credit (PTC) began phasing down for new projects almost immediately, solar developers were given until the end of 2019 to qualify projects for the full ITC.

And critically, while the wind PTC drops to nothing after its sunset, commercially owned solar projects will remain eligible for a 10 percent ITC forever, based on the existing legislation. Over time, that amounts to a huge advantage for solar.

In another twist, the solar industry is now openly fighting for an extension of the 30 percent ITC, while the wind industry seemingly remains cooler on the prospect of pushing for a similar prolongation — having said the current PTC extension would be the last.

Plenty of tailwinds, too

Wood Mackenzie's report catalogues multiple factors that could work for or against the wind market in the "uncharted" post-PTC years, many of them, including the Covid-19 crisis, beyond the industry’s direct control.

If things go well, annual installations could bounce back to near-record levels by 2027 after a mid-decade contraction, the report says. But if they go badly, installations could remain depressed at 4 gigawatts or below from 2022 through most of the coming decade, and that includes an anticipated uplift from the offshore market.

An extension of the solar ITC without additional wind support would “severely compound” the wind market’s struggle to rebound in the 2020s, the report says. The already-evident shift in corporate renewables procurement from wind to solar could intensify dramatically.

The other big challenge for wind in the 2020s is the lack of progress on transmission infrastructure that would connect potentially massive low-cost wind farms in interior states with bigger population centers. A hoped-for national infrastructure package that might address the issue has not materialized.

Even so, many in the wind business remain cautiously optimistic about the post-PTC years, with a wind jobs forecast bolstering sentiment, and developers continue to build out longer-term project pipelines.

Turbine technology continues to improve. And an extension of the solar ITC is far from assured.

Other factors that could work in wind’s favor in the years ahead include:

The nascent offshore sector, which despite lingering regulatory uncertainty at the federal level looks set to blossom into a multi-gigawatt annual market by the mid-2020s, in line with an offshore wind forecast that highlights substantial growth potential. Lobbying efforts for an offshore wind ITC extension are gearing up, offering a potential area for cooperation between wind and solar.

The potential linkage of policy support for energy storage to wind projects, building on the current linkage with solar.

Growing electric vehicle sales and a shift toward time-of-use retail electricity billing, which could boost power demand during off-peak hours when wind generation is strong.

The land-use advantages wind farms have over solar in some agricultural regions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Spring Storm Grid Risks highlight tornado outbreaks, flooding, power outages, and transmission disruptions, with NOAA flood outlooks, coal and barge delays, vulnerable nuclear sites, and distribution line damage demanding resilience, reliability, and emergency preparedness.

Key Points

Spring Storm Grid Risks show how tornadoes and floods disrupt power systems, fuel transport, and plants guide resilience.

✅ Tornado outbreaks and derechos damage distribution and transmission

✅ Flooding drives outages via treefall, substation and plant inundation

✅ Fuel logistics disrupted: rail coal, river barges, road access

The storm and tornado outbreak that recently barreled through the US Midwest, South and Mid-Atlantic was a devastating reminder of how much danger spring can deliver, despite it being the “milder” season compared to summer and winter.  

Danger season is approaching, and the country is starting to see the impacts. 

The event killed at least 32 people across seven states. The National Weather Service is still tallying up the number of confirmed tornadoes, which has already passed 100. Communities coping with tragedy are assessing the damage, which so far includes at least 72 destroyed homes in one Tennessee county alone, and dozens more homes elsewhere. 

On Saturday, April 1–the day after the storm struck–there were 1.1 million US utility customers without power, even as EIA reported a January power generation surge earlier in the year. On Monday morning, April 3, there were still more than 80,000 customers in the dark, according to PowerOutage.us. The storm system brought disruptions to both distribution grids–those networks of local power lines you generally see running overhead to buildings–as well as the larger transmission grid in the Midwest, which is far less common than distribution-level issues. 

While we don’t yet have a lot of granular details about this latest storm’s grid impacts, recent shifts in demand like New York City's pandemic power patterns show how operating conditions evolve, and it’s worth going through what else the country might be in for this spring, as well as in future springs. Moreover, there are steps policymakers can take to prepare for these spring weather phenomena and bolster the reliability and resilience of the US power system. 

Heightened flood risk 
The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said in a recent outlook that about 44 percent of the United States is at risk of floods this spring, equating to about 146 million people. This includes most of the eastern half of the country, the federal agency said. 

The agency also sees “major” flood risk potential in some parts of the Upper Mississippi River Basin, and relatively higher risk in the Sierra Nevada region, due in part to a historic snowpack in California.  

Multiple components of the power system can be affected by spring floods. 

Power lines – Floods can saturate soil and make trees more likely to uproot and fall onto power lines. This has been contributing to power outages during California’s recent heavy storms–called atmospheric rivers–that started over the winter. In other regions, soil moisture has even been used as a predictor of where power outages will occur due to hurricanes, so that utility companies are better prepared to send line repair crews to the right areas. Hurricanes are primarily a summer and fall phenomenon, and summer also brings grid stress from air conditioning demand in many states, so for now, during spring, they are less of a concern.  

Fuel transport – Spring floods can hinder the transportation of fuels like coal. While it is a heavily polluting fossil fuel that is set to continue declining as a fuel source for US electricity generation, with the EIA summer outlook for wind and solar pointing to further shifts, coal still accounted for roughly 20 percent of the country’s generation in 2022.   

About 70 percent of US coal is transported at least part of the way by trains. The rail infrastructure to transport coal from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming–the country’s primary coal source–was proven to be vulnerable to extreme floods in the spring of 2011, and even more extreme floods in the spring of 2019. The 2019 floods’ disruptions of coal shipments to power plants via rail persisted for months and into the summertime, also affecting river shipments of coal by barge. In June 2019, hundreds of barges were stalled in the Mississippi River, through which millions of tons of the fossil fuel are normally transported. 

Power plants – Power plants themselves can also be at risk of flooding, since most of them are sited near a source of water that is used to create steam to spin the plants’ turbines, and conversely, low water levels can constrain hydropower as seen in Western Canada hydropower drought during recent reservoir shortfalls. Most US fossil fuel generating capacity from sources like methane gas, which recently set natural gas power records across the grid, and coal utilizes steam to generate electricity. 

However, much of the attention paid to the flood risk of power plant sites has centered on nuclear plants, a key source of low-carbon electricity discussed in IAEA low-carbon electricity lessons that also require a water source for the creation of steam, as well as for keeping the plant cool in an emergency. To name a notable flood example here in the United States–both visually and substantively–in 2011, the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant in Nebraska was completely surrounded by water due to late-spring flooding along the Missouri River. This sparked a lot of concerns because it was just a few months after the March 2011 meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan. The public was thankfully not harmed by the Nebraska incident, but this was unfortunately not an isolated incident in terms of flood risks posed to the US nuclear power fleet. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News