Lakeview^^s win is another^^s loss
By Toronto Star
NFPA 70e Training
Our customized live online or in‑person group training can be delivered to your staff at your location.
- Live Online
- 6 hours Instructor-led
- Group Training Available
By Toronto Star
Our customized live online or in‑person group training can be delivered to your staff at your location.
Muskrat Falls Financing Restructuring redirects megadam benefits to ratepayers, stabilizes electricity rates, and overhauls federal provincial loan guarantees for the hydro project, addressing cost overruns flagged by the Public Utilities Board in Newfoundland and Labrador.
A revised funding model shifting benefits to ratepayers to curb rate hikes linked to Muskrat Falls cost overruns.
✅ Shields ratepayers from megadam cost overruns
✅ Revises federal provincial loan guarantees
✅ Targets stable electricity rates by 2021 and beyond
Ottawa and Newfoundland and Labrador say they will rewrite the financial structure of the Muskrat Falls hydro project to shield ratepayers from paying for the megadam's cost overruns.
Federal Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan and Premier Dwight Ball announced Monday that their two governments would scrap the financial structure agreed upon in past federal-provincial loan agreements, moving to a model that redirects benefits, such as a lump sum credit, to ratepayers.
Both politicians called the announcement, which was light on dollar figures, a major milestone in easing residents' fears that electricity rates will spike sharply, as seen with Nova Scotia's debated 14% hike, when the over-budget dam comes fully online next year.
"We are in a far better place today thanks to this comprehensive plan," Ball said.
Ball has said the issue of electricity rates is a top priority for his government, and he has pledged to keep rates near existing levels, but rate mitigation talks with Ottawa have dragged on since April.
A report by the province's Public Utilities Board released Friday forecast an "unprecedented" 75 per cent increase in average domestic rates for island residents in 2021, while Nova Scotia's regulator approved a 14% hike, and reported concerns from industrial customers about their ability to remain competitive.
Costs of the Muskrat Falls megadam on Labrador's Lower Churchill River have ballooned to more than $12.7 billion since the project was approved in 2012, according to the latest estimate of Crown corporation Nalcor Energy.
The dam is set to produce more power than the province can sell. Its existing financial structure would have left electricity ratepayers paying for Muskrat Falls to make up the difference starting in 2021, an issue both governments said Monday has been resolved with the relaunch of financing talks.
"Essentially, you won't pay this on your monthly light bills," Ball said.
But details of how the project will meet financing requirements in coming decades to make up the gap in funds are still to be worked out.
Both Ball and O'Regan criticized previous governments for sanctioning the poorly planned development and again pledged their commitment to easing the burden on residents.
"We promised we would be there to help, and we will be," O'Regan said before announcing a "relaunch" of negotiations around the project's financial structure.
He did not say how much the new setup might cost the federal government, despite earlier federal funding commitments, stressing that the new focus will be on the project's long-term sustainability. "There's no single piece of policy ... that can resolve such a large and complicated mess," O'Regan said.
The two governments also said they will work towards electrifying federal buildings to reduce an anticipated power surplus in the province.
In the short term, the federal government said it would allow for "flexibility" in upcoming cash requirements related to debt servicing, allowing deferral of payments if necessary.
Ball said that flexibility was built in to ensure the plan would still be applicable if costs continue to rise before Muskrat Falls is commissioned.
Political opponents criticized Monday's plan as lacking detail.
"What I heard talked about was an agreement that in the future, there's going to be an agreement," said Progressive Conservative Leader Ches Crosbie. "This was an occasion to reassure people that there's a plan in place to make life here affordable, and I didn't see that happen today."
Others addressed the lingering questions about the project's final cost.
Nalcor's latest financial update has remained unchanged since 2017, though the Muskrat Falls project has seen additional delays related to staffing and software issues.
Dennis Browne, the province's consumer advocate, said the switch to a cost of service model is a significant move that will benefit ratepayers, but he said it's impossible to truly restructure the project while it's a work in progress. "We need to know what the figures are, and we don't have them," he said.
US Control of Ukraine Nuclear Plants sparks debate over ZNPP, Zaporizhzhia, sovereignty, safety, ownership, and international cooperation, as Washington touts utility expertise, investment, and modernization to protect critical energy infrastructure amid conflict.
US management proposal for Ukraine's nuclear assets, notably ZNPP, balancing sovereignty, safety, and investment.
✅ Ukraine retains ownership; any transfer requires parliament approval.
✅ ZNPP safety risks persist amid occupation near active conflict.
✅ International reactions split: sovereignty vs. cooperation and investment.
In a recent phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, U.S. President Donald Trump proposed that the United States take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants, including the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), which has been under Russian occupation since early in the war and where Russia is reportedly building power lines to reactivate the plant amid ongoing tensions. Trump suggested that American ownership of these plants could be the best protection for their infrastructure, a proposal that has sparked controversy in policy circles, and that the U.S. could assist in running them with its electricity and utility expertise.
Ukrainian Response
President Zelenskyy promptly addressed Trump's proposal, stating that while the conversation focused on the ZNPP, the issue of ownership was not discussed. He emphasized that all of Ukraine's nuclear power plants belong to the Ukrainian people and that any transfer of ownership would require parliamentary approval . Zelenskyy clarified that while the U.S. could invest in and help modernize the ZNPP, ownership would remain with Ukraine.
Security Concerns
The ZNPP, Europe's largest nuclear facility, has been non-operational since its occupation by Russian forces in 2022. The plant's location near active conflict zones raises significant safety risks that the IAEA has warned of in connection with attacks on Ukraine's power grids, and its future remains uncertain. Ukrainian officials have expressed concerns about potential Russian provocations, such as explosions, especially after UN inspectors reported mines at the Zaporizhzhia plant near key facilities, if and when Ukraine attempts to regain control of the plant.
International Reactions
The proposal has elicited mixed reactions both within Ukraine and internationally. Some Ukrainian officials view it as an opportunistic move by the U.S. to gain control over critical infrastructure, while others see it as a potential avenue for modernization and investment, alongside expanding wind power that is harder to destroy in wartime. The international community remains divided on the issue, with some supporting Ukraine's sovereignty over its nuclear assets and others advocating for a possible agreement on power plant attacks to ensure the plant's safety and future operation.
President Trump's proposal to have the U.S. take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has sparked significant controversy. While the U.S. offers expertise and investment, Ukraine maintains that ownership of its nuclear assets is a matter of national sovereignty, even as it has resumed electricity exports to bolster its economy. The situation underscores the complex interplay between security, sovereignty, and international cooperation in conflict zones.
Summerland Solar+Storage Project brings renewable energy to a municipal utility with photovoltaic panels and battery storage, generating 1,200 megawatts from 3,200 panels on Cartwright Mountain to boost grid resilience and local clean power.
A municipal solar PV and battery system enabling Summerland Power to self-generate electricity on Cartwright Mountain.
✅ 3,200 panels, 20-year batteries, 35-year panel lifespan
✅ Estimated $7M cost, $6M in grants, utility reserve funding
✅ Site near grid lines; 2-year timeline with 18-month lead
A proposed solar energy project, to be constructed on municipally-owned property on Cartwright Mountain, will allow Summerland Power to produce some of its own electricity, similar to how Summerside's wind power supplies a large share locally.
On Monday evening, municipal staff described the Solar+Storage project, aligning with insights from renewable power developers that combining resources yields better projects.
The project will include around 3,200 solar panels and storage batteries, giving Summerland Power the ability to generate 1,200 megawatts of electrical power.
This is the amount of energy used by 100 homes over the course of a year.
The solar panels have an estimated life expectancy of 35 years, while the batteries have a life expectancy of 20 years.
“It’s a really big step for a small utility like ours,” said Tami Rothery, sustainability/alternative energy coordinator for Summerland. “We’re looking forward to moving towards a bright, sunny energy future.”
She said the price of solar panels has been dropping, with lower-cost solar contracts reported in Alberta, and the quality and efficiency of the panels has increased in recent years.
The total cost of the project is around $7 million, with $6 million to come from grant funding and the remainder to come from the municipality’s electrical utility reserve fund, while policy changes such as Nova Scotia's solar charge delay illustrate evolving market conditions.
The site, a former public works yard and storage area, was selected from 108 parcels of land considered by the municipality.
She said the site, vacant since the 1970s, is close to main electrical lines and will not be highly visible once the panels are in place, much like unobtrusive rooftop solar arrays in urban settings.
Access to the site is restricted, resulting in natural security to the solar installation.
Jeremy Storvold, general manager of Summerland’s electrical utility, said the site is 2.5 kilometres from the Prairie Valley electrical substation and close to the existing public works yard.
However, some in the audience on Monday questioned the location of the proposed solar installation, suggesting the site would be better suited for affordable housing in the community.
The timeline for the project calls for roughly two years before the work will be completed, since there is an 18-month lead time in order to receive good quality solar panels, reflecting the surge in Alberta's solar growth that is straining supply chains.
Ontario Renewable Energy Cancellations highlight Doug Ford's move to scrap wind turbine contracts, citing electricity rate relief and taxpayer savings, while critics, the NDP, and industry warn of job losses, termination fees, and auditor scrutiny.
Ontario's termination of renewable contracts, defended as cost and rate relief, faces disputes over savings and jobs.
✅ PCs cite electricity rate relief and taxpayer savings.
✅ Critics warn of job losses and termination fees.
✅ Auditor inquiry sought into contract cancellation costs.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford, whose new stance on wind power has drawn attention, said Thursday he is “proud” of his decision to tear up hundreds of renewable energy deals, a move that his government acknowledges could cost taxpayers more than $230 million.
Ford dismissed criticism that his Progressive Conservatives are wasting public money, telling a news conference that the cancellation of 750 contracts signed by the previous Liberal government will save cash, even as Ontario moves to reintroduce renewable energy projects in the coming years.
“I’m so proud of that,” Ford said of his decision. “I’m proud that we actually saved the taxpayers $790 million when we cancelled those terrible, terrible, terrible wind turbines that really for the last 15 years have destroyed our energy file.”
Later Thursday, Ford went further in defending the cancelled contracts, saying “if we had the chance to get rid of all the wind mills we would,” though a court ruling near Cornwall challenged such cancellations.
The NDP first reported the cost of the cancellations Tuesday, saying the $231 million figure was listed as “other transactions”, buried in government documents detailing spending in the 2018-2019 fiscal year.
The Progressive Conservatives have said the final cost of the cancellations, which include the decommissioning of a wind farm already under construction in Prince Edward County, Ont., has yet to be established, amid warnings about wind project cancellation costs from developers.
The government has said it tore up the deals because the province didn’t need the power and it was driving up electricity rates, and the decision will save millions over the life of the contracts. Industry officials have disputed those savings, saying the cancellations will just mean job losses for small business, and ignore wind power’s growing competitiveness in electricity markets.
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath has asked Ontario’s auditor general to investigate the contracts and their termination fees, amid debates over Ontario’s electricity future among leadership contenders. She called Ford’s remarks on Thursday “ridiculous.”
“Every jurisdiction around the world is trying to figure out how to bring more renewables onto their electricity grids,” she said. “This government is taking us backwards and costing us at the very least $231 million in tearing these energy contracts.”
At the federal level, a recent green electricity contract with an Edmonton company underscores that shift.
Canada Clean Electricity leads decarbonization, slashing power-sector emissions through coal phase-out, renewables like hydro, wind, and solar, and nuclear. Provinces cut carbon intensity, enabling electrification of transport and buildings toward net-zero goals.
Canada Clean Electricity is the shift to low-emission power by phasing out coal and scaling renewables and nuclear.
✅ 38% cut in electricity emissions since 2005; 84% fossil-free power.
✅ Provinces lead coal phase-out; carbon intensity plummets.
✅ Enables EVs, heat pumps, and building electrification.
It's our country’s one big climate success so far.
"All across Canada, electricity generation has been getting much cleaner. It's our country’s one big climate success so far,"
To illustrate how quickly electric power is being cleaned up, what's still left to do, and the benefits it brings, I've dug into Canada's latest emissions inventory and created a series of charts below.
The sector that could
Climate pollution by Canadian economic sector, 2005 to 2017My first chart shows how Canada's economic sectors have changed their climate pollution since 2005.
While most sectors have increased their pollution or made little progress in the climate fight, our electricity sector has shined.
As the green line shows, Canadians have eliminated an impressive 38 per cent of the climate pollution from electricity generation in just over a decade.
To put these shifts into context, I've shown Canada's 2020 climate target on the chart as a gray star. This target was set by the Harper government as part of the global Copenhagen Accord. Specifically, Canada pledged to cut our climate pollution 17 per cent below 2005 levels under evolving Canadian climate policy frameworks of the time.
As you can see, the electricity sector is the only one to have done that so far. And it didn’t just hit the target — it cut more than twice as much.
Change in Canada's electricity generation, 2005 to 2017My next chart shows how the electricity mix changed. The big climate pollution cuts came primarily from reductions in coal burning, highlighting the broader implications of decarbonizing Canada's electricity grid for fuel choices.
The decline in coal-fired power was replaced (and then some) by increases in renewable electricity and other zero-emissions sources — hydro, wind, solar and nuclear.
As a result, Canada's overall electricity generation is now 84 per cent fossil free.
Every province making progress
A primary reason why electricity emissions fell so quickly is because every province worked to clean up Canada's electricity together.
Change in Canadian provincial electricity carbon intensity, 2005 to 2017
My next chart illustrates this rare example of Canada-wide climate progress. It shows how quickly the carbon-intensity of electricity generation has declined in different provinces.
(Note: carbon-intensity is the amount of climate pollution emitted per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated: gCO2e/kWh).
Ontario clearly led the way with an amazing 92 per cent reduction in climate pollution per kWh in just twelve years. Most of that came from ending the burning of coal in their power plants. But a big chunk also came from cutting in half the amount of natural gas they burn for electricity.
Manitoba, Quebec and B.C. also made huge improvements.
Even Alberta and Saskatchewan, which were otherwise busy increasing their overall climate pollution, made progress in cleaning up their electricity.
These real-world examples show that rapid and substantial climate progress can happen in Canada when a broad-spectrum of political parties and provinces decide to act.
Most Canadians now have superclean electricity
As a result of this rapid cleanup, most Canadians now have access to superclean energy.
Canadian provincial electricity carbon intensity in 2017
Who has it? And how clean is it?
The biggest climate story here is the superclean electricity generated by the four provinces shown on the left side — Quebec, Manitoba, B.C. and Ontario. Eighty per cent of Canadians live in these provinces and have access to this climate-safe energy source.
Those living in Alberta and Saskatchewan, however, still have fairly dirty electricity — as shown in orange on the right — and options like bridging the electricity gap between Alberta and B.C. could accelerate progress in the West.
A lot more cleanup must happen here before the families and businesses in these provinces have a climate-safe energy supply.
What's left to do?
Canada's electricity sector has two big climate tasks remaining: finishing the cleanup of existing power and generating even more clean energy to replace fossil fuels like the gasoline and natural gas used by vehicles, factories and other buildings.
Finishing the clean up
Climate pollution from Canadian provincial electricity 2005 and 2017
As we saw above, more than a third of the climate pollution from electricity has already been eliminated. That leaves nearly two-thirds still to clean up.
Back in 2005, Canada's total electricity emissions were 125 million tonnes (MtCO2).
Over the next twelve years, emissions fell by more than a third (-46 MtCO2). Ontario did most of the work by cutting 33 MtCO2. Alberta, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia made the next biggest cuts of around 4 MtCO2 each.
Now nearly eighty million tonnes of climate pollution remain.
As you can see, nearly all of that now comes from Alberta and Saskatchewan. As a result, continuing Canada's climate progress in the power sector now requires big cuts in the electricity emissions from these two provinces.
Generating more clean electricity
The second big climate task remaining for Canada's electricity is to generate more clean electricity to replace the fossil fuels burned in other sectors. My next chart lets you see how big a task this is.
Clean electricity generation by Canadian province, 2017
It shows how much climate-safe electricity is currently generated in major provinces. This includes zero-emissions renewables (blue bars) and nuclear power (pale blue).
Quebec tops the list with 191 terawatt-hours (TWh) per year. While impressive, it only accounts for around half of the energy Quebecers use. The other half still comes from climate-damaging fossil fuels and to replace those, Quebec will need to build out more clean energy.
The good news here is that electricity is more efficient for most tasks, so fossil fuels can be replaced with significantly less electric energy. In addition, other efficiency and reduction measures can further reduce the amount of new electricity needed.
Newfoundland and Labrador is in the best situation. They are the only province that already generates more climate-safe electricity than they would need to replace all the fossil fuels they burn. They currently export most of that clean electricity.
At the other extreme are Alberta and Saskatchewan. These provinces currently produce very little climate-safe energy. For example, Alberta's 7 TWh of climate-safe electricity is only enough to cover 1 per cent of the energy used in the province.
All told, Canadians currently burn fossil fuels for three-quarters of the energy we use. To preserve a safe-and-sane climate, most provinces will soon need lots more clean electricity in the race to net-zero to replace the fossil fuels we burn.
How soon will they need it?
According to the most recent report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), avoiding a full-blown climate crisis will require humanity to cut emissions by 45 per cent over the next decade.
Using electricity to clean up other sectors
Finally, let's look at how electricity can help clean up two of Canada’s other high-emission sectors — transportation and buildings.
Cleaning up transportation
Transportation is now the second biggest climate polluting sector in Canada (after the oil and gas industry). So, it’s a top priority to reduce the amount of gasoline we use.
Canadian provincial electricity carbon intensity in 2017, plus gasoline equivalent
Switching to electric vehicles (EVs) can reduce transportation emissions by a little, or a lot. It depends on how clean the electricity supply is.
To make it easy to compare gasoline to each province's electricity I've added a new grey-striped zone at the top of the carbon-intensity chart.
This new zone shows that burning gasoline in cars and trucks has a carbon-intensity equivalent to more than 1,000 gCO2e/kWh. (If you are interested in the details of this and other data points, see the geeky endnotes.)
The good news is that every province's electricity is now much cleaner than gasoline as a transportation fuel.
In fact, most Canadians have electricity that is at least 95 per cent less climate polluting than gasoline. Electrifying vehicles in these provinces virtually eliminates those transportation emissions.
Even in Alberta, which has the dirtiest electricity, it is 20 per cent cleaner than gasoline. That's a help, for sure. But it also means that Albertans must electrify many more vehicles to achieve the same emissions reductions as regions with cleaner electricity.
In addition to reducing climate pollution, switching transportation to electricity brings other big benefits:
It reduces air pollution in cities — a major health hazard.
It cuts the energy required for transportation by 75 per cent — because electric motors are so much more efficient.
It reduces fuel costs up to 80 per cent — saving tens of thousands of dollars.
And for gasoline-importing provinces, using local electricity keeps billions of fuel dollars inside their provincial economy.
As an extra bonus, it makes it hard for companies to manipulate the price or for outsiders to "turn off the taps.”
Cleaning up buildings
Canada's third biggest source of climate pollution is the buildings sector.
Burning natural gas for heating is the primary cause. So, reducing the amount of fossil gas burned in buildings is another top climate requirement.
Canadian provincial electricity carbon intensity in 2017, plus gasoline and nat gas heating equivalent
Heating with electricity is a common alternative. However, it's not always less climate polluting. It depends on how clean the electricity is.
To compare these two heating sources, look at the lower grey-striped zone I've added to the chart.
It shows that heating with natural gas has a carbon-intensity of 200 to 300 gCO2 per kWh of heat delivered. High-efficiency gas furnaces are at the lower end of this range.
As you can see, for most Canadians, electric heat is now the much cleaner choice — nearly eliminating emissions from buildings. But in Alberta and Saskatchewan, electricity is still too dirty to replace natural gas heat.
The climate benefits of electric heat can be improved further by using the newer high-efficiency air-source heat pump technologies like mini-splits. These can heat using one half to one third of the electricity of standard electric baseboard heaters. That means it is possible to use electricity that is a bit dirtier than natural gas and still deliver cleaner heating. As a bonus, heat pumps can free up a lot of existing electricity supply when used to replace existing electric baseboards.
Electrify everything
You’ve probably heard people say that to fight climate breakdown, we need to “electrify everything.” Of course, the electricity itself needs to be clean and what we’ve seen is that Canada is making important progress on that front. The electricity industry, and the politicians that prodded them, all deserve kudos for slashing emissions at more than twice the rate of any other sector.
We still need to finish the cleanup job, but we also need to turn our sights to the even bigger task ahead: requiring that everything fossil fuelled — every building, every factory, every vehicle — switches to clean Canadian power.
Hurricane Grid Resilience examines how utilities manage outages with renewables, microgrids, and robust transmission and distribution systems, balancing solar, wind, and batteries to restore service, harden infrastructure, and improve storm response and recovery.
Hurricane grid resilience is a utility approach to withstand storms, reduce outages, and speed safe power restoration.
✅ Focus on T&D hardening, vegetation management, remote switching
✅ Balance generation mix; integrate solar, wind, batteries, microgrids
✅ Plan 12-hour shifts; automate forecasting and outage restoration
When operators of Duke Energy's control room in Raleigh, North Carolina wait for a hurricane, the mood is often calm in the hours leading up to the storm.
“Things are usually fairly quiet before the activity starts,” said Mark Goettsch, the systems operations manager at Duke. “We’re anxiously awaiting the first operation and the first event. Once that begins, you get into storm mode.”
Then begins a “frenzied pace” that can last for days — like when Hurricane Florence parked over Duke’s service territory in September.
When an event like Florence hits, all eyes are on transmission and distribution. Where it’s available, Duke uses remote switching to reconnect customers quickly. As outages mount, the utility forecasts and balances its generation with electricity demand.
The control center’s four to six operators work 12-hour shifts, while nearby staff members field thousands of calls and alarms on the system. After it’s over, “we still hold our breath a little bit to make sure we’ve operated everything correctly,” said Goettsch. Damage assessment and rebuilding can only begin once a storm passes.
That cycle is becoming increasingly common in utility service areas like Duke's.
A slate of natural disasters that reads like a roll call — Willa, Michael, Harvey, Irma, Maria, Florence and Thomas — has forced a serious conversation about resiliency. And though Goettsch has heard a lot about resiliency as a “hot topic” at industry events and meetings, those conversations are only now entering Duke’s control room.
Resilience discussions come and go in the energy industry. Storms like Hurricane Sandy and Matthew can spur a nationwide focus on resiliency, but change is largely concentrated in local areas that experienced the disaster. After a few news cycles, the topic fades into the background.
However, experts agree that resilience is becoming much more important to year-round utility planning and operations as utilities pursue decarbonization goals across their fleets. It's not a fad.
“If you look at the whole ecosystem of utilities and vendors, there’s a sense that there needs to be a more resilient grid,” said Miki Deric, Accenture’s managing director of utilities, transmission and distribution for North America. “Even if they don’t necessarily agree on everything, they are all working with the same objective.”
Can renewables meet the challenge?
After Hurricane Florence, The Intercept reported on coal ash basins washed out by the storm’s overwhelming waters. In advance of that storm, Duke shut down one nuclear plant to protect it from high winds. The Washington Post also recently reported on a slowly leaking oil spill, which could surpass Deepwater Horizon in size, caused by Hurricane Ivan in 2004.
Clean energy boosters have seized on those vulnerabilities.They say solar and wind, which don’t rely on access to fuel and can often generate power immediately after a storm, provide resilience that other electricity sources do not.
“Clearly, logistics becomes a big issue on fossil plants, much more than renewable,” said Bruce Levy, CEO and president at BMR Energy, which owns and operates clean energy projects in the Caribbean and Latin America. “The ancillaries around it — the fuel delivery, fuel storage, water in, water out — are all as susceptible to damage as a renewable plant.”
Duke, however, dismissed the notion that one generation type could beat out another in a serious storm.
“I don’t think any generation source is immune,” said Duke spokesperson Randy Wheeless. “We’ve always been a big supporter of a balanced energy mix, reflecting why the grid isn't 100% renewable in practice today. That’s going to include nuclear and natural gas and solar and renewables as well. We do that because not every day is a good day for each generation source.”
In regard to performance, Wade Schauer, director of Americas Power & Renewables Research at Wood Mackenzie, said the situation is “complex.” According to him, output of solar and wind during a storm depends heavily on the event and its location.
While comprehensive data on generation performance is sparse, Schauer said coal and gas generators could experience outages at 25 percent while stormy weather might cut 95 percent of output from renewables, underscoring clean energy's dirty secret about variability under stress. Ahead of last year’s “bomb cyclone” in New England, WoodMac data shows that wind dropped to less than 1 percent of the supply mix.
“When it comes to resiliency, ‘average performance’ doesn't cut it,” said Schauer.
In the future, he said high winds could impact all U.S. offshore wind farms, since projects are slated for a small geographic area in the Northeast. He also pointed to anecdotal instances of solar arrays in New England taken out by feet of snow. During Florence, North Carolina’s wind farms escaped the highest winds and continued producing electricity throughout. Cloud cover, on the other hand, pushed solar production below average levels.
After Florence passed, Duke reported that most of its solar came online quickly, although four of its utility-owned facilities remained offline for weeks afterward. Only one was because of damage; the other three remained offline due to substation interconnection issues.
“Solar performed pretty well,” said Wheeless. “But did it come out unscathed? No.”
According to installer reports, solar systems fared relatively well in recent storms, even as the Covid-19 impact on renewables constrained projects worldwide. But the industry has also highlighted potential improvements. Following Hurricanes Maria and Irma, the Federal Emergency Management Agency published guidelines for installing and maintaining storm-resistant solar arrays. The document recommended steps such as annual checks for bolt tightness and using microinverters rather than string inverters.
Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) also assembled a guide for retrofitting and constructing new installations. It described attributes of solar systems that survived storms, like lateral racking supports, and those that failed, like undersized and under-torqued bolts.
“The hurricanes, as much as no one liked them, [were] a real learning experience for folks in our industry,” said BMR’s Levy. “We saw what worked, and what didn’t.”
Facing the "800-pound gorilla" on the grid
Advocates believe wind, solar, batteries and microgrids offer the most promise because they often rely less on transmitting electricity long distances and could support peer-to-peer energy models within communities.
Most extreme weather outages arise from transmission and distribution problems, not generation issues. Schauer at WoodMac called storm damage to T&D the “800-pound gorilla.”
“I'd be surprised if a single customer power outage was due to generators being offline, especially since loads where so low due to mild temperatures and people leaving the area ahead of the storm,” he said of Hurricane Florence. “Instead, it was wind [and] tree damage to power lines and blown transformers.”
Stay informed with our FREE Newsletter — get the latest news, breakthrough technologies, and expert insights, delivered straight to your inbox.
Advantages To Instructor-Led Training – Instructor-Led Course, Customized Training, Multiple Locations, Economical, CEU Credits, Course Discounts.
Request For QuotationWhether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person instruction, our electrical training courses can be tailored to meet your company's specific requirements and delivered to your employees in one location or at various locations.