Fire knocks out apartment power

Methane Hydrate CO2 Sequestration uses carbon capture and nitrogen injection to swap gases in seafloor hydrates along the Gulf of Mexico, releasing methane for electricity while storing CO2, according to new simulation research.

Key Points

A method injecting CO2 and nitrogen into hydrates to store CO2 while releasing methane for power.

✅ Nitrogen aids CO2-methane swap in hydrate cages, speeding sequestration

✅ Gulf Coast proximity to emitters lowers transport and power costs

✅ Revenue from methane electricity could offset carbon capture

The world is quickly realizing it may need to actively pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to stave off the ill effects of climate change. Scientists and engineers have proposed various carbon capture techniques, but most would be extremely expensive—without generating any revenue. No one wants to foot the bill.

One method explored in the past decade might now be a step closer to becoming practical, as a result of a new computer simulation study. The process would involve pumping airborne CO2 down into methane hydrates—large deposits of icy water and methane right under the seafloor, beneath water 500 to 1,000 feet deep—where the gas would be permanently stored, or sequestered. The incoming CO2 would push out the methane, which would be piped to the surface and burned to generate electricity, whether sold locally or via exporters like Hydro-Que9bec to help defray costs, to power the sequestration operation or to bring in revenue to pay for it.

Many methane hydrate deposits exist along the Gulf of Mexico shore and other coastlines. Large power plants and industrial facilities that emit CO2 also line the Gulf Coast, where EPA power plant rules could shape deployment, so one option would be to capture the gas directly from nearby smokestacks, keeping it out of the atmosphere to begin with. And the plants and industries themselves could provide a ready market for the electricity generated.

A methane hydrate is a deposit of frozen, latticelike water molecules. The loose network has many empty, molecular-size pores, or “cages,” that can trap methane molecules rising through cracks in the rock below. The computer simulation shows that pushing out the methane with CO2 is greatly enhanced if a high concentration of nitrogen is also injected, and that the gas swap is a two-step process. (Nitrogen is readily available anywhere, because it makes up 78 percent of the earth’s atmosphere.) In one step the nitrogen enters the cages; this destabilizes the trapped methane, which escapes the cages. In a separate step, the nitrogen helps CO2 crystallize in the emptied cages. The disturbed system “tries to reach a new equilibrium; the balance goes to more CO2 and less methane,” says Kris Darnell, who led the study, published June 27 in the journal Water Resources Research. Darnell recently joined the petroleum engineering software company Novi Labs as a data scientist, after receiving his Ph.D. in geoscience from the University of Texas, where the study was done.

A group of labs, universities and companies had tested the technique in a limited feasibility trial in 2012 on Alaska’s North Slope, where methane hydrates form in sandstone under deep permafrost. They sent CO2 and nitrogen down a pipe into the hydrate. Some CO2 ended up being stored, and some methane was released up the same pipe. That is as far as the experiment was intended to go. “It’s good that Kris [Darnell] could make headway” from that experience, says Ray Boswell at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, who was one of the Alaska experiment leaders but was not involved in the new study. The new simulation also showed that the swap of CO2 for methane is likely to be much more extensive—and to happen quicker—if CO2 enters at one end of a hydrate deposit and methane is collected at a distant end.

The technique is somewhat similar in concept to one investigated in the early 2010s by Steven Bryant and others at the University of Texas. In addition to numerous methane hydrate deposits, the Gulf Coast has large pools of hot, salty brine in sedimentary rock under the coastline. In this system, pumps would send CO2 down into one end of a deposit, which would force brine into a pipe that is placed at the other end and leads back to the surface. There the hot brine would flow through a heat exchanger, where heat could be extracted and used for industrial processes or to generate electricity, supporting projects such as electrified LNG in some markets. The upwelling brine also contains some methane that could be siphoned off and burned. The CO2 dissolves into the underground brine, becomes dense and sinks further belowground, where it theoretically remains.

Either system faces big practical challenges, and building shared CO2 storage hubs to aggregate captured gas is still evolving. One is creating a concentrated flow of CO2; the gas makes up only .04 percent of air, and roughly 10 percent of the smokestack emission from a typical power plant or industrial facility. If an efficient methane hydrate or brine system requires an input that is 90 percent CO2, for example, concentrating the gas will require an enormous amount of energy—making the process very expensive. “But if you only need a 50 percent concentration, that could be more attractive,” says Bryant, who is now a professor of chemical and petroleum engineering at the University of Calgary. “You have to reduce the [CO2] capture cost.”

Another major challenge for the methane hydrate approach is how to collect the freed methane, which could simply seep out of the deposit through numerous cracks and in all directions. “What kind of well [and pipe] structure would you use to grab it?” Bryant asks.

Given these realities, there is little economic incentive today to use methane hydrates for sequestering CO2. But as concentrations rise in the atmosphere and the planet warms further, and as calls for an electric planet intensify, systems that could capture the gas and also provide energy or revenue to run the process might become more viable than techniques that simply pull CO2 from the air and lock it away, offering nothing in return.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Electric Buses reduce urban emissions and noise, but require charging infrastructure, grid upgrades, and depot redesigns; they offer lower operating costs and simpler maintenance, with range limits influencing routes, schedules, and on-route fast charging.

Key Points

Battery-electric buses cut emissions and noise while lowering operating and maintenance costs for transit agencies.

✅ Lower emissions, noise; improved rider experience

✅ Requires charging, grid upgrades, depot redesigns

✅ Range limits affect routes; on-route fast charging helps

In lots of ways, the electric bus feels like a technology whose time has come. Transportation is responsible for about a quarter of global emissions, and those emissions are growing faster than in any other sector. While buses are just a small slice of the worldwide vehicle fleet, they have an outsize effect on the environment. That’s partly because they’re so dirty—one Bogotá bus fleet made up just 5 percent of the city’s total vehicles, but a quarter of its CO2, 40 percent of nitrogen oxide, and more than half of all its particulate matter vehicle emissions. And because buses operate exactly where the people are concentrated, we feel the effects that much more acutely.

Enter the electric bus. Depending on the “cleanliness” of the electric grid into which they’re plugged, e-buses are much better for the environment. They’re also just straight up nicer to be around: less vibration, less noise, zero exhaust. Plus, in the long term, e-buses have lower operating costs, and related efforts like US school bus electrification are gathering pace too.

So it makes sense that global e-bus sales increased by 32 percent last year, according to a report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, as the age of electric cars accelerates across markets worldwide. “You look across the electrification of cars, trucks—it’s buses that are leading this revolution,” says David Warren, the director of sustainable transportation at bus manufacturer New Flyer.

Today, about 17 percent of the world’s buses are electric—425,000 in total. But 99 percent of them are in China, where a national mandate promotes all sorts of electric vehicles. In North America, a few cities have bought a few electric buses, or at least run limited pilots, to test the concept out, and early deployments like Edmonton's first e-bus offer useful lessons as systems ramp up. California has even mandated that by 2029 all buses purchased by its mass transit agencies be zero-emission.

But given all the benefits of e-buses, why aren’t there more? And why aren’t they everywhere?

“We want to be responsive, we want to be innovative, we want to pilot new technologies and we’re committed to doing so as an agency,” says Becky Collins, the manager of corporate initiative at the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, which is currently on its second e-bus pilot program. “But if the diesel bus was a first-generation car phone, we’re verging on smartphone territory right now. It’s not as simple as just flipping a switch.”

One reason is trepidation about the actual electric vehicle. Some of the major bus manufacturers are still getting over their skis, production-wise. During early tests in places like Belo Horizonte, Brazil, e-buses had trouble getting over steep hills with full passenger loads. Albuquerque, New Mexico, canceled a 15-bus deal with the Chinese manufacturer BYD after finding equipment problems during testing. (The city also sued). Today’s buses get around 225 miles per charge, depending on topography and weather conditions, which means they have to re-up about once a day on a shorter route in a dense city. That’s an issue in a lot of places.

If you want to buy an electric bus, you need to buy into an entire electric bus system. The vehicle is just the start.

The number one thing people seem to forget about electric buses is that they need to get charged, and emerging projects such as a bus depot charging hub illustrate how infrastructure can scale. “We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles,” says Camron Gorguinpour, the global senior manager for the electric vehicles at the World Resources Institute, a research organization, which last month released twin reports on electric bus adoption. “The actual charging stations get lost in the mix.”

But charging stations are expensive—about $50,000 for your standard depot-based one. On-route charging stations, an appealing option for longer bus routes, can be two or three times that. And that’s not even counting construction costs. Or the cost of new land: In densely packed urban centers, movements inside bus depots can be tightly orchestrated to accommodate parking and fueling. New electric bus infrastructure means rethinking limited space, and operators can look to Toronto's TTC e-bus fleet for practical lessons on depot design. And it’s a particular pain when agencies are transitioning between diesel and electric buses. “The big issue is just maintaining two sets of fueling infrastructure,” says Hanjiro Ambrose, a doctoral student at UC Davis who studies transportation technology and policy.

“We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles. The actual charging stations get lost in the mix as the American EV boom gathers pace across sectors.”

Then agencies also have to get the actual electricity to their charging stations. This involves lengthy conversations with utilities about grid upgrades, rethinking how systems are wired, occasionally building new substations, and, sometimes, cutting deals on electric output, since electric truck fleets will also strain power systems in parallel. Because an entirely electrified bus fleet? It’s a lot to charge. Warren, the New Flyer executive, estimates it could take 150 megawatt-hours of electricity to keep a 300-bus depot charged up throughout the day. Your typical American household, by contrast, consumes 7 percent of that—per year. “That’s a lot of work by the utility company,” says Warren.

For cities outside of China—many of them still testing out electric buses and figuring out how they fit into their larger fleets—learning about what it takes to run one is part of the process. This, of course, takes money. It also takes time. Optimists say e-buses are more of a question of when than if. Bloomberg New Energy Finance projects that just under 60 percent of all fleet buses will be electric by 2040, compared to under 40 percent of commercial vans and 30 percent of passenger vehicles.

Which means, of course, that the work has just started. “With new technology, it always feels great when it shows up,” says Ambrose. “You really hope that first mile is beautiful, because the shine will come off. That’s always true.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Advanced Nuclear Technology drives decarbonization through innovation, SMRs, and a stable grid, bolstering U.S. leadership, energy security, and clean power exports under supportive regulation and policy to meet climate goals cost-effectively.

Key Points

Advanced nuclear technology uses SMRs to deliver low-carbon, reliable power and strengthen energy security.

✅ Accelerates decarbonization with firm, low-carbon baseload power

✅ Enhances grid reliability via SMRs and advanced fuel cycles

✅ Supports U.S. leadership through exports, R&D, and modern regulation

The most cost-effective way--indeed the only reasonable way-- to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and foster our national economic and security interests is through innovation, especially next-gen nuclear power innovation. That's from Rep. Greg Walden, R-Oregon, ranking Republican member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, speaking to a Subcommittee on Energy hearing titled, "Building a 100 Percent Clean Economy: Advanced Nuclear Technology's Role in a Decarbonized Future."

Here are the balance of his remarks.

Encouraging the deployment of atomic energy technology, strengthening our nuclear industrial base, implementing policies that helps reassert U.S. nuclear leadership globally... all provide a promising path to meet both our environmental and energy security priorities. In fact, it's the only way to meet these priorities.

So today can help us focus on what is possible and what is necessary to build on recent policies we've enacted to ensure we have the right regulatory landscape, the right policies to strengthen our domestic civil industry, and the advanced nuclear reactors on the horizon.

U.S. global leadership here is sorely needed. Exporting clean power and clean power technologies will do more to drive down global Co2 emissions on the path to net-zero emissions worldwide than arbitrary caps that countries fail to meet.

In May last year, the International Energy Agency released an informative report on the role of nuclear power in clean energy systems; it did not find current trends encouraging.

The report noted that nuclear and hydropower "form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation," responsible for three-quarters of global low-carbon generation and the reduction of over 60 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions over the past 50 years.

Yet IEA found in advanced economies, nuclear power is in decline, with closing plants and little new investment, "just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity."

There are various reasons for this, some relating to cost overruns and delays, others to policies that fail to value the "low-carbon and energy security attributes" of nuclear. In any case, the report found this failure to encourage nuclear will undermine global efforts to develop cleaner electricity systems.

Germany demonstrates the problem. As it chose to shut down its nuclear industry, it has doubled down on expanding renewables like solar and wind. Ironically, to make this work, it also doubled down on coal. This nuclear phase out has cost Germany $12 billion a year, 70% of which is from increased mortality risk from stronger air pollutants (this according to the National Bureau of Economic Research). If other less technologically advanced nations even could match the rate of renewables growth reached by Germany, they would only hit about a fifth of what is necessary to reach climate goals--and with more expensive energy. So, would they then be forced to bring online even more coal-fired sources than Germany?

On the other hand, as outlined by the authors of the pro-nuclear book "A Bright Future," France and Sweden have both demonstrated in the 1970s and 1980s, how to do it. They showed that the build out of nuclear can be done at five times the rate of Germany's experience with renewables, with increased electricity production and relatively lower prices.

I think the answer is obvious about the importance of nuclear. The question will be "can the United States take the lead going forward?"

We can help to do this in Congress if we fully acknowledge what U.S. leadership on nuclear will mean--both for cleaner power and industrial systems beyond electricity, here and abroad--and for the ever-important national security attributes of a strong U.S. industry.

Witnesses have noted in recent hearings that recognizing how U.S. energy and climate policy effects energy and energy technology relationships world-wide is critical to addressing emissions where they are growing the fastest and for strengthening our national security relationships.

Resurrecting technological leadership in nuclear technology around the world will meet our broader national and energy security reasons--much as unleashing U.S. LNG from our shale revolution restored our ability to counter Russia in energy markets, while also driving cleaner technology. Our nuclear energy exports boost our national security priorities.

We on Energy and Commerce have been working, in a bipartisan manner over the past few Congresses to enhance U.S. nuclear policies. There is most certainly more to do. And I think today's hearing will help us explore what can be done, both administratively and legislatively, to pave the way for advanced nuclear energy.

Let me welcome the panel today. Which, I'm pleased to see, represents several important perspectives, including industry, regulatory, safety, and international expertise, to two innovative companies--Terrapower and my home state of Oregon's NuScale. All of these witnesses can speak to what we need to do to build, operate and lead with these new technologies.

We should work to get our nation's nuclear policy in order, learning from global frameworks like the green industrial revolution abroad. Today represents a good step in that effort.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. Electricity Trade by State, 2013-2017 highlights EIA grid patterns, interstate imports and exports, cross-border flows with Canada and Mexico, net exporters and importers, and market regions like ISOs and RTOs shaping consumption and generation.

Key Points

Brief EIA overview of interstate and cross-border power flows, ranking top net importers and exporters.

✅ Pennsylvania was the largest net exporter, averaging 59 million MWh.

✅ California was the largest net importer, averaging 77 million MWh.

✅ Top cross-border: NY, CA, VT, MN, MI imports; WA, TX, CA, NY, MT exports.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) State Electricity Profiles, from 2013 to 2017, Pennsylvania was the largest net exporter of electricity, while California was the largest net importer.

Pennsylvania exported an annual average of 59 million megawatt-hours (MWh), while California imported an average of 77 million MWh annually.

Based on the share of total consumption in each state, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Idaho and Delaware were the five largest power-importing states between 2013 and 2017, highlighting how some clean states import 'dirty' electricity as consumption outpaces local generation. Wyoming, West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana and New Hampshire were the five largest power-exporting states. Wyoming and West Virginia were net power exporting states between 2013 and 2017.

New York, California, Vermont, Minnesota and Michigan imported the most electricity from Canada or Mexico on average from 2013 to 2017, reflecting the U.S. look to Canada for green power during that period. Similarly, Washington, Texas, California, New York, and Montana exported the most electricity to Canada or Mexico, on average, during the same period.

Electricity routinely flows among the Lower 48 states and, to a lesser extent, between the United States and Canada and Mexico. From 2013 to 2017, Pennsylvania was the largest net exporter of electricity, sending an annual average of 59 million megawatthours (MWh) outside the state. California was the largest net importer, receiving an average of 77 million MWh annually.

Based on the share of total consumption within each state, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Idaho, and Delaware were the five largest power-importing states between 2013 and 2017. Wyoming, West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, and New Hampshire were the five largest power-exporting states. States with major population centers and relatively less generating capacity within their state boundaries tend to have higher ratios of net electricity imports to total electricity consumption, as utilities devote more to electricity delivery than to power production in many markets.

Wyoming and West Virginia were net power exporting states (they exported more power to other states than they consumed) between 2013 and 2017. Customers residing in these two states are not necessarily at an economic disadvantage or advantage compared with customers in neighboring states when considering their electricity bills and fees and market dynamics. However, large amounts of power trading may affect a state’s revenue derived from power generation.

Some states also import and export electricity outside the United States to Canada or Mexico, even as Canada's electricity exports face trade tensions today. New York, California, Vermont, Minnesota, and Michigan are the five states that imported the most electricity from Canada or Mexico on average from 2013 through 2017. Similarly, Washington, Texas (where electricity production and consumption lead the nation), California, New York, and Montana are the five states that exported the most electricity to Canada or Mexico, on average, for the same period.

Many states within the continental United States fall within integrated market regions, referred to as independent system operators or regional transmission organizations. These integrated market regions allow electricity to flow freely between states or parts of states within their boundaries.

EIA’s State Electricity Profiles provide details about the supply and disposition of electricity for each state, including net trade with other states and international imports and exports, and help you understand where your electricity comes from more clearly.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Geothermal Power Plant Risks include hydrogen sulfide leaks, toxic gases, lava flow hazards, well blowouts, and earthquake-induced releases at sites like PGV and the Geysers, threatening public health, grid reliability, and environmental safety.

Key Points

Geothermal Power Plant Risks include toxic gases, lava impacts, well failures, and induced quakes that threaten health.

✅ Hydrogen sulfide exposure can cause rapid pulmonary edema.

✅ Lava can breach wells, venting toxic gases into communities.

✅ Induced seismicity may disrupt grids near PGV and the Geysers.

If lava reaches Hawaii’s PGV geothermal power plant, it could release of deadly hydrogen sulfide gas. That’s the latest potential danger from the Kilauea volcanic eruption in Hawaii. Residents now fear that lava flow will trigger a meltdown at the Puna Geothermal Venture (PGV) power plant that would release even more toxic gases into the air.

Nobody knows what will happen if lava engulfs the PGV because magma has never engulfed a geothermal power plant, Reuters reported. A geothermal power plant uses steam and gas heated by lava deep in the earth to run turbines that make electricity.

The PGV power plant produces 25% of the power used on Hawaii’s “Big Island.” The plant is considered a source of clean energy because geothermal plants burn no fossil fuels and produce little pollution under normal circumstances, even as nuclear retirements like Three Mile Island reshape low-carbon options.

The Potential Danger from Geothermal Energy

The fear is that the lava would release chemicals used to make electricity at the plant. The PGV has been shut down and authorities moved an estimated 60,000 gallons of flammable liquids away from the facility. They also shut down wells that extract steam and gas used to run the turbines.

Another potential danger is that lava would open the wells and release clouds of toxic gases from them. The wells are typically sealed to prevent the gas from entering the atmosphere.

The most significant threat is hydrogen sulfide, a highly toxic and flammable gas that is colorless. Hydrogen sulfide normally has a rotten egg smell which people might not detect when the air is full of smoke. That means people can breathe hydrogen sulfide in without realizing they have been exposed.

The greatest danger from hydrogen sulfide is pulmonary edema; the accumulation of fluid in the lungs, which causes a person to stop breathing. People have died of pulmonary edema after just a few minutes of exposure to hydrogen sulfide gas. Many victims become unconscious before the gas kills them. Long-term dangers that survivors of pulmonary edema face include brain damage.

Hydrogen sulfide can also cause burns to the skin that are similar to frostbite. Persons exposed to hydrogen sulfide can also suffer from nausea, headaches, severe eye burns, and delirium. Children are more vulnerable to hydrogen sulfide because it is a heavy gas that stays close to the ground.

Geothermal Danger Extends Far Beyond Hawaii

The danger from geothermal energy extends far beyond Hawaii. The world’s largest collection of geothermal power plants is located at the Geysers in California’s Wine Country, and regulatory timelines such as the postponed closure of three Southern California plants can affect planning.

The Geysers field contains 350 steam production wells and 22 power plants in Sonoma, Lake, and Mendocino counties. Disturbingly, the Geysers are located just north of the heavily-populated San Francisco Bay Area and just west of Sacramento, where preemptive electricity shutdowns have been used during extreme fire weather. Problems at the Geysers might lead to significant blackouts because the field supplies around 20% of the green energy used in California.

Another danger from geothermal power is earthquakes because many geothermal power plants inject wastewater into hot rock deep below to produce steam to run turbines, a factor under review as SaskPower explores geothermal in new settings. A geothermal project in Switzerland created Earthquakes by injecting water into the Earth, Zero Hedge reported. A theoretical threat is that quakes caused by injection would cause the release of deadly gases at a geothermal power plant.

The dangers from geothermal power might be much greater than its advocates admit, potentially increasing reliance on natural-gas-based electricity during supply shortfalls.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Nuclear Expansion aims to meet rising electricity demand and decarbonization goals, complementing renewables with energy storage, hydroelectric, and SMRs, while reducing natural gas reliance and safeguarding grid reliability across the province.

Key Points

A plan to add large nuclear capacity to meet demand, support renewables, cut gas reliance, and maintain grid reliability

✅ Adds firm, low-carbon baseload to complement renewables

✅ Reduces reliance on natural gas during peak and outages

✅ Requires public and Indigenous engagement on siting

Ontario is exploring the possibility of building new, large-scale nuclear plants in order to meet increasing demand for electricity and phase out natural gas generation.

A report late last year by the Independent Electricity System Operator found that the province could fully eliminate natural gas from the electricity system by 2050, starting with a moratorium in 2027, but it will require about $400 billion in capital spending and more generation including new, large-scale nuclear plants.

Decarbonizing the grid, in addition to new nuclear, will require more conservation efforts, more renewable energy sources and more wind and solar power sources and more energy storage, the report concluded.

The IESO said work should start now to assess the reliability of new and relatively untested technologies and fuels to replace natural gas, and to set up large, new generation sources such as nuclear plants and hydroelectric facilities.

The province has not committed to a natural gas moratorium or phase-out, or to building new nuclear facilities other than its small modular reactor plans, but it is now consulting on the prospect.

A document recently posted to the government’s environmental registry asks for input on how best to engage the public and Indigenous communities on the planning and location of new generation and storage facilities.

Building new nuclear plants is “one pathway” toward a fully electrified system, Energy Minister Todd Smith said in an interview.

“It’s a possibility, for sure, and that’s why we’re looking for the feedback from Ontarians,” he said. “We’re considering all of the next steps.”

Environmental groups such as Environmental Defence oppose new nuclear builds, as well as the continued reliance on natural gas.

“The IESO’s report is peddling the continued use of natural gas under the guise of a decarbonization plan, and it takes as a given the ramping up of gas generation and continues to rely on gas generated electricity until 2050, which is embarrassingly late,” said Lana Goldberg, Environmental Defence’s Ontario climate program manager.

“Building new nuclear is absurd when we have safe and much cheaper alternatives such as wind and solar power.”

The IESO has said the flexibility natural gas provides, alongside new gas plants, is needed to keep the system stable while new and relatively untested technologies are explored and new infrastructure gets built, but also as an electricity supply crunch looms.

Ontario is facing a shortfall of electricity with the Pickering nuclear station set to be retired, others being refurbished, and increasing demands including from electric vehicles, new electric vehicle and battery manufacturing, electric arc furnaces for steelmaking, and growth in the greenhouse and mining industries.

The government consultation also asks whether “additional investment” should be made in clean energy in the short term in order to decrease reliance on natural gas, “even if this will increase costs to the electricity system and ratepayers.”

But Smith indicated the government isn’t keen on higher costs.

“We’re not going to sacrifice reliability and affordability,” he said. “We have to have a reliable and affordable system, otherwise we won’t have people moving to electrification.”

The former Liberal government faced widespread anger over high hydro bills _ highlighted often by the Progressive Conservatives, then in Opposition — driven up in part by long-term contracts at above-market rates with clean power producers secured to spur a green energy transition.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News