Technical schools receive Fluke test equipment

High Lonesome Wind Farm powers Texas with 500 MW of renewable energy, backed by a 12-year PPA with Danone North America and a Proxy Revenue Swap, cutting CO2 emissions as Enel's largest project to date.

Key Points

A 500 MW Enel wind project in Texas, supplying renewable power via PPAs and hedged by a Proxy Revenue Swap.

✅ 450 MW online; expanding to 500 MW in early 2020

✅ 12-year PPA with Danone North America for 20.6 MW

✅ PRS hedge with Allianz and Nephila stabilizes revenues

Enel, through its US renewable subsidiary Enel Green Power North America, Inc. (“EGPNA”), has started operations of its 450 MW High Lonesome wind farm in Upton and Crockett Counties, in Texas, the largest operational wind project in the Group’s global renewable portfolio, alongside a recent 90 MW Spanish wind build in its European pipeline. Enel also signed a 12-year, renewable energy power purchase agreement (PPA) with food and beverage company Danone North America, a Public Benefit Corporation, for physical delivery of the renewable electricity associated with 20.6 MW, leading to an additional 50 MW expansion of High Lonesome that will increase the plant’s total capacity to 500 MW. The construction of the 50 MW expansion is currently underway and operations are due to start in the first quarter of 2020.

“The start of operations of Enel’s largest wind farm in the world marks a significant achievement for our company and reinforces our global commitment to accelerated renewable energy growth,” said Antonio Cammisecra, CEO of Enel Green Power, referencing the largest wind project constructed in North America as evidence of market momentum. “This milestone is matched with a new partnership with Danone North America to support their renewable goals, a reinforcement of our continued commitment to provide customers with tailored solutions to meet their sustainability goals.”

The agreement between Enel and Danone North America will provide enough electricity to produce the equivalent of almost 800 million cups of yogurt1 and over 80 million gallons2 of milk each year and support the food and beverage company’s commitment to securing 100% of its purchased electricity from renewable sources by 2030, in a market where North Carolina’s first wind farm is now fully operational and expanding access to clean power.

Mariano Lozano, president and CEO of Danone North America, added:“This is an exciting and significant step as we continue to advance our 2030 renewable electricity goals. As a public benefit corporation committed to balancing the needs of our business with those of society and the planet, we truly believe that this agreement makes sense from both a business and sustainability point of view. We’re delighted to be working with Enel Green Power to expand their High Lonesome wind farm and grow the renewable electricity infrastructure, such as New York’s biggest offshore wind projects, here in the US.”

In addition, as more US wind projects come online, such as TransAlta’s 119 MW project, the energy produced by a 295 MW portion of the project will be hedged under a Proxy Revenue Swap (PRS) with insurer Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty, Inc.'s Alternative Risk Transfer unit (Allianz), and Nephila Climate, a provider of weather and climate risk management products. The PRS is a financial derivative agreement designed to produce stable revenues for the project regardless of power price fluctuations and weather-driven intermittency, hedging the project from this kind of risk in addition to that associated with price and volume.

Under the PRS agreement, and as other projects begin operations, like Building Energy’s latest plant, High Lonesome will receive fixed payments based on the expected value of future energy production, with adjustments paid depending on how the realized proxy revenue of the project differs from the fixed payment. The PRS for High Lonesome, which is the largest by capacity for a single plant globally and the first agreement of its kind for Enel, was executed in collaboration with REsurety, Inc.

The investment in the construction of the 500 MW plant amounts to around 720 million US dollars. The wind farm is due to generate around 1.9 TWh annually, comparable to a 280 MW Alberta wind farm’s output, while avoiding the emission of more than 1.2 million tons of CO2 per year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

PG&E Wind Shutdown and Renewable Reliability examines PSPS strategy, wildfire risk, transmission line exposure, wind turbine cut-out speeds, grid stability, and California's energy mix amid historic high-wind events and supply constraints across service areas.

Key Points

An overview of PG&E's PSPS decisions, wildfire mitigation, and how wind cut-out limits influence grid reliability.

✅ Wind turbines reach cut-out near 55 mph, reducing generation.

✅ PSPS mitigates ignition from damaged transmission infrastructure.

✅ Baseload diversity improves resilience during high-wind events.

According to the official, widely reported story, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) initiated power shutoffs across substantial portions of its electric transmission system in northern California as a precautionary measure.

Citing high wind speeds they described as “historic,” the utility claims that if it didn’t turn off the grid, wind-caused damage to its infrastructure could start more wildfires.

Perhaps that’s true. Perhaps. This tale presumes that the folks who designed and maintain PG&E’s transmission system are unaware of or ignored the need to design it to withstand severe weather events, and that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) allowed the utility to do so.

Ignorance and incompetence happens, to be sure, but there’s much about this story that doesn’t smell right—and it’s disappointing that most journalists and elected officials are apparently accepting it without question.

Take, for example, this statement from a Fox News story about the Kincade Fires: “A PG&E meteorologist said it’s ‘likely that many trees will fall, branches will break,’ which could damage utility infrastructure and start a fire.”

Did you ever notice how utilities cut wide swaths of trees away when transmission lines pass through forests? There’s a reason for that: When trees fall and branches break, the grid can still function, and even as the electric rhythms of New York City shifted during COVID-19, operators planned for variability.

So, if badly designed and poorly maintained infrastructure isn’t the reason PG&E cut power to millions of Californians, what might have prompted them to do so? Could it be that PG&E’s heavy reliance on renewable energy means they don’t have the power to send when a “historic” weather event occurs, especially as policymakers weigh the postponed closure of three power plants elsewhere in California?

Wind Speed Limits

The two most popular forms of renewable energy come with operating limitations, which is why some energy leaders urge us to keep electricity options open when planning the grid. With solar power, the constraint is obvious: the availability of sunlight. One doesn’t generate solar power at night and energy generation drops off with increasing degrees of cloud cover during the day.

The main operating constraint of wind power is, of course, wind speed, and even in markets undergoing 'transformative change' in wind generation, operators adhere to these technical limits. At the low end of the scale, you need about a 6 or 7 miles-per-hour wind to get a turbine moving. This is called the “cut-in speed.” To generate maximum power, about a 30 mph wind is typically required. But, if the wind speed is too high, the wind turbine will shut down. This is called the “cut-out speed,” and it’s about 55 miles per hour for most modern wind turbines.

It may seem odd that wind turbines have a cut-out speed, but there’s a very good reason for it. Each wind turbine rotor is connected to an electric generator housed in the turbine nacelle. The connection is made through a gearbox that is sized to turn the generator at the precise speed required to produce 60 Hertz AC power.

The blades of the wind turbine are airfoils, just like the wings of an airplane. Adjusting the pitch (angle) of the blades allows the rotor to maintain constant speed, which, in turn, allows the generator to maintain the constant speed it needs to safely deliver power to the grid. However, there’s a limit to blade pitch adjustment. When the wind is blowing so hard that pitch adjustment is no longer possible, the turbine shuts down. That’s the cut-out speed.

Now consider how California’s power generation profile has changed. According to Energy Information Administration data, the state generated 74.3 percent of its electricity from traditional sources—fossil fuels and nuclear, amid debates over whether to classify nuclear as renewable—in 2001. Hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass-generated power accounted for most of the remaining 25.7 percent, with wind and solar providing only 1.98 percent of the total.

By 2018, the state’s renewable portfolio had jumped to 43.8 percent of total generation, with clean power increasing and wind and solar now accounting for 17.9 percent of total generation. That’s a lot of power to depend on from inherently unreliable sources. Thus, it wouldn’t be at all surprising to learn that PG&E didn’t stop delivering power out of fear of starting fires, but because it knew it wouldn’t have power to deliver once high winds shut down all those wind turbines

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

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.

Key Points

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.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Renewable Energy Security strengthens affordability and grid reliability through electrification, wind, and solar, reducing fossil fuel volatility exposed by the Ukraine crisis, aligning with IEA guidance and the Paris Agreement to deliver resilient, low-cost power.

Key Points

Renewable energy security is reliable, affordable power from electrification, wind and solar, cutting fossil fuel risk.

✅ Wind and solar now outcompete gas for new power capacity.

✅ Diversifies supply and reduces fossil price volatility.

✅ Requires grid flexibility, storage, and demand response.

Oil, gas, and coal have been the central pillar of the global energy system throughout the 20th century. And for decades, these fossil fuels have been closely associated with energy security.  

The perception of energy security, however, is rapidly changing. Renewables form an increasing share of energy sectors worldwide as countries look to deliver on the Paris Agreement and mitigate the effects of climate change, with IEA clean energy investment now significantly outpacing fossil fuels. Moreover, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated how relying on fossil fuels for power, heating, and transport has left many countries vulnerable or energy insecure.  

The International Energy Agency (IEA) defines energy security as “the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price” (IEA, 2019a). This definition hardly describes today’s global energy situation, with the cancellation of natural gas deliveries and skyrocketing prices for oil and gas products, and with supply chain challenges in clean energy that also require attention. These circumstances have cascading effects on electricity prices in countries like the United Kingdom that rely heavily on natural gas to produce electricity. In Europe, energy insecurity has been even further amplified since the Russian corporation Gazprom recently cut off gas supplies to several countries.  

As a result, energy security has gained new urgency in Canada and worldwide, creating opportunities in the global electricity market for Canada. Recent events provide a stark reminder of the volatility and potential vulnerability of global fossil fuel markets and supply chains. Even in Canada, as one of the largest producers of oil and gas in the world, the price of fuels depends on global and regional market forces rather than government policy or market design. Thus, the average monthly price for gasoline in Canada hit a record high of CAD 2.07 per litre in May 2022 (Figure 1), and natural gas prices surged to a record CAD 7.54 per MMBtu in May 2022 (Figure 2).  

Energy price increases of this magnitude are more than enough to strain Canadian household budgets. But on top of that, oil and gas prices have accelerated inflation more broadly as it has become more expensive to produce, transport, and store goods, including food and other basic commodities (Global News, 2022).  

Renewable Energy Is More Affordable 

In contrast to oil and gas, renewable energy can reliably deliver affordable energy, as shown by falling wholesale electricity prices in markets with growing clean power. This is a unique and positive aspect of today’s energy crisis compared to historical crises: options for electrification and renewable-based electricity systems are both available and cost-effective.  

For new power capacity, wind and solar are now cheaper than any other source, and wind power is making gains as a competitive source in Canada. According to Equinor (2022), wind and solar were already cheaper than gas-based power in 2020. This means that renewable energy was already the cheaper option for new power before the recent natural gas price spikes. As illustrated in Figure 3, the cost of new renewable energy has dropped so dramatically that, for many countries, it is cheaper to install new solar or wind infrastructure than to keep operating existing fossil fuel-based power plants (International Renewable Energy Agency, 2021). This means that replacing fossil-based electricity generation with renewables would save money and reduce emissions. Wind and solar prices are expected to continue their downward trends as more countries increase deployment and learn how to best integrate these sources into the grid. 

Renewable Energy Is Reliable 

To deliver on the uninterrupted availability side of the energy security equation, renewable power must remain reliable even as more variable energy sources, like wind and solar, are added to the system, and regional leaders such as the Prairie provinces will help anchor this transition. For Canada and other countries to achieve high energy security through electrification, grid system operations must be able to support this, and pathways to zero-emissions electricity by 2035 are feasible.  

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hydro One COVID-19 Rate Relief responds to time-of-use pricing, peak rates, and Ontario Energy Board rules as residents stay home, offering a Pandemic Relief Fund, flexible payments, and support for electricity bills amid off-peak adjustments.

Key Points

Hydro One's COVID-19 rate relief includes payment flexibility and hardship aid to ease time-of-use bill burdens.

✅ Advocates flexibility on time-of-use and peak rate impacts

✅ Pandemic Relief Fund offers aid and payment options

✅ OEB sets prices; utilities relay concerns and support

Hydro One says it is listening to requests by self-isolating residents for reduced kilowatt hour peak rates during the day when most people are home riding out the COVID-19 pandemic.

Peak rates of 20.8 cents per kw/h are twice as high from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. – except weekends – than off-peak rates of 10.1 cents per kw/h and set by the Ontario Energy Board and not electricity providers such as Hydro One and Elexicon (formerly Veridian).

Frustrated electrical customers have signed their John Henry’s more than 50,000 times to a change.org petition demanding Hydro One temporarily slash rates for those already struggling with work closures and loss of income amid concerns about a potential recovery rate that could raise bills.

Alex Stewart, media relations spokesman for Hydro One, said the corporation is working toward a solution.

“While we are regulated to adhere to time-of-use pricing by the Ontario Energy Board, we’ve heard the concerns about time-of-use pricing and the idea of a fixed COVID-19 hydro rate as many of our customers will stay home to stop the spread of COVID-19,” Stewart told The Intelligencer.

“We continue to advocate for greater choice during this difficult time and are working with everyone in the electricity sector to ensure our customers are heard.”

Stewart said the electricity provider is reaching out to customers to help them during a difficult self-isolating and social distancing period in other ways to bring financial relief.

For example, new hardship measures are now in play by Hydro One to give customers some relief from ballooning electricity bills.

“This is a difficult time for everyone. Hydro One has launched a new Pandemic Relief Fund to support customers affected by the novel coronavirus COVID-19. As part of our commitment to customers, we will offer financial assistance, as well as increased payment flexibility, to customers experiencing hardship,” Stewart said.

“Hydro One is also extending its Winter Relief program to halt disconnections and reconnections to customers experiencing hardship during the coldest months of the year. This is about doing the right thing and offering flexibility to our customers so they have peace of mind and can concentrate on what matters most – keeping their loved ones safe.”

Stewart said customers having difficult times can visit the company’s website for more details at www.HydroOne.com/ReliefFund.

Elexicon Energy, meanwhile, said earlier the former Veridian company is passing along concerns to the OEB but otherwise can’t lower the rates unless directed to do so, as occurred when the province set off-peak pricing temporarily.

Chris Mace, Elexicon corporate communications spokesperson, said, “We don’t have the authority to do that.

“The Ontario Energy Board sets the energy prices. This is in the Ministry of Energy’s hands. We at Elexicon, along with other local distribution companies (LDC), have shared this feedback with the ministry and OEB to come up with some sort of solution or alternative. But this is out of our hands. We can’t shift anything.”

He suggested residents can shift the use of higher-drawing electrical appliances to early morning before 7 or in the evening after 7 p.m. when ultra-low overnight rates may apply.

Families may want to be “mindful whether it be cooking or laundry and so on and holding off on doing those until off-peak hours take effect. We are hearing customers and we have passed along those concerns to the ministry and the OEB.”

Hydro One power tips

Certain electrical uses in the home consumer more power than others, as reflected in Ontario’s electricity cost allocation approach:

62 per cent goes to space heating
19 per cent goes to water heaters
13 per cent goes to appliances
2 per cent goes to space cooling

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News