DOE sets new lighting standards

Alberta Renewable Energy Market is accelerating as wind and solar prices fall, corporate PPAs expand, and a deregulated, energy-only system, AESO outlooks, and TIER policy drive investment across the province.

Key Points

An open, energy-only Alberta market where wind and solar growth is driven by corporate PPAs, AESO outlooks, and TIER.

✅ Energy-only, deregulated grid enables private investment

✅ Corporate PPAs lower costs and hedge power price risk

✅ AESO forecasts and TIER policy support renewables

By Chris Varcoe, Calgary Herald

A few things are abundantly clear about the state of renewable energy in Alberta today.

First, the demise of Alberta’s Renewable Electricity Program (REP) under the UCP government isn’t going to see new projects come to a screeching halt.

In fact, new developments are already going ahead.

And industry experts believe private-sector companies that increasingly want to purchase wind or solar power are going to become a driving force behind even more projects in Alberta.

BluEarth Renewables CEO Grant Arnold, who spoke Wednesday at the Canadian Wind Energy Association conference, pointed out the sector is poised to keep building in the province, even with the end of the REP program that helped kick-start projects and triggered low power prices.

“The fundamentals here are, I think, quite fantastic — strong resource, which leads to really competitive wind prices . . . it’s now the cheapest form of new energy in the province,” he told the audience.

“Alberta is in a fundamentally good place to grow the wind power market.”

Unlike other provinces, Alberta has an open, deregulated marketplace, which create opportunities for private-sector investment and renewable power developers as well.

The recent decision by the Kenney government to stick with the energy-only market, instead of shifting to a capacity market, is seen as positive for Alberta's energy future by renewable electricity developers.

There is also increasing interest from corporations to buy wind and solar power from generators — a trend that has taken off in the United States with players such as Google, General Motors and Amazon — and that push is now emerging in Canada.

“It’s been really important in the U.S. for unlocking a lot of renewable energy development,” said Sara Hastings-Simon, founding director of the Business Renewable Centre Canada, which seeks to help corporate buyers source renewable energy directly from project developers.

“You have some companies where . . . it’s what their investors and customers are demanding. I think we will see in Alberta customers who see this as a good way to meet their carbon compliance requirements.

“And the third motivation to do it is you can get the power at a good price.”

Just last month, Perimeter Solar signed an agreement with TC Energy to supply the Calgary-based firm with 74 megawatts from its solar project near Claresholm.

More deals in the industry are being discussed, and it’s expected this shift will drive other projects forward.

There is increasing interest from corporations to buy solar and wind energy directly from generators.

“The single-biggest change has been the price of wind and solar,” Arnold said in an interview.

“Alberta looks really, really bright right now because we have an open market. All other provinces, for regulatory reasons, we can’t have this (deal) . . . between a generator and a corporate buyer of power. So Alberta has a great advantage there.”

These forces are emerging as the renewable energy industry has seen dramatic change in recent years in Alberta, with costs dropping and an array of wind and solar developments moving ahead, even as solar expansion faces challenges in the province.

The former NDP government had an aggressive target to see green energy sources make up 30 per cent of all electricity generation by 2030.

Last week, the Alberta Electric System Operator put out its long-term outlook, with its base-case scenario projecting moderate demand growth for power over the next two decades. However, the expected load growth — expanding by an average of 0.9 per cent annually until 2039 — is only half the rate seen in the past 20 years.

Natural gas will become the main generation source in the province as coal-fired power (now comprising more than one-third of generation) is phased out.

Renewable projects initiated under the former NDP government’s REP program will come online in the near term, while “additional unsubsidized renewable generation is expected to develop through competitive market mechanisms and support from corporate power purchase agreements,” the report states.

AESO forecasts installed generation capacity for renewables will almost double to about 19 per cent by 2030, with wind and solar increasing to 21 per cent by 2039.

Another key policy issue for the sector will likely come within the next few weeks when the provincial government introduces details of its new Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction program (TIER).

The initiative will require large industrial emitters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a benchmark level, pay into the technology fund, or buy offsets or credits. The carbon price is expected to be around $20 to $30 a tonne, and the system will kick in on Jan. 1, 2020.

Industry players point out the decision to stick with Alberta’s energy-only market along with the details surrounding TIER, and a focus by government on reducing red tape, should all help the sector attract investment.

“It is pretty clear there is a path forward for renewables here in the province,” said Evan Wilson, regional director with the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

All of these factors are propelling the wind and solar sector forward in the province, at the same time the oil and gas sector faces challenges to grow.

But it doesn’t have to be an either/or choice for the province moving forward. We’re going to need many forms of energy in the coming decades, and Alberta is an energy powerhouse, with potential to develop more wind and solar, as well as oil and natural gas resources.

“What we see sometimes is the politics and discussion around renewables or oil becomes a deliberate attempt to polarize people,” Arnold added.

“What we are trying to show, in working in Alberta on renewable projects, is it doesn’t have to be polarizing. There are a lot of solutions.

“The combination of solutions is part of what we need to talk about.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

CO2 Tax for UK Offshore Energy Efficiency can accelerate adoption of aero-derivative gas turbines, flare gas recovery, and combined cycle power, reducing emissions on platforms like Equinor's Mariner and supporting net zero goals.

Key Points

A carbon price pushing operators to adopt efficient turbines, flare recovery, and combined cycle to cut emissions.

✅ Aero-derivative turbines beat industrial units on efficiency

✅ Flare gas recovery cuts routine flaring and fuel waste

✅ Combined cycle raises efficiency and lowers emissions

By Tom Baxter

The recent Energy Voice article from the Equinor chairman concerning the Mariner project heralding a ‘significant point of reference’ for growth highlighted the energy efficiency achievements associated with the platform.

I view energy efficiency as a key enabler to net zero, and alongside this the UK must start large-scale storage to meet system needs; it is a topic I have been involved with for many years.

As part of my energy efficiency work, I investigated Norwegian practices and compared them with the UK.

There were many differences, here are three;

1. Power for offshore installations is usually supplied from gas turbines burning fuel from the oil and gas processing plant, and even as the UK's offshore wind supply accelerates, installations convert that to electricity or couple the gas turbine to a machine such as a gas compressor.

There are two main generic types of gas turbine – aero-derivative and industrial. As the name implies aero-derivatives are aviation engines used in a static environment. Aero-derivative turbines are designed to be energy efficient as that is very import for the aviation industry.

Not so with industrial type gas turbines; they are typically 5-10% less efficient than a comparable aero-derivative.

Industrial machines do have some advantages – they can be cheaper, require less frequent maintenance, they have a wide fuel composition tolerance and they can be procured within a shorter time frame.

My comparison showed that aero-derivative machines prevailed in Norway because of the energy efficiency advantages – not the case in the UK where there are many more offshore industrial gas turbines.

Tom Baxter is visiting professor of chemical engineering at Strathclyde University and a retired technical director at Genesis Oil and Gas Consultants

2. Offshore gas flaring is probably the most obvious source of inefficient use of energy with consequent greenhouse gas emissions.

On UK installations gas is always flared due to the design of the oil and gas processing plant.

Though not a large quantity of gas, a continuous flow of gas is routinely sent to flare from some of the process plant.

In addition the flare requires pilot flames to be maintained burning at all times and, while Europe explores electricity storage in gas pipes, a purge of hydrocarbon gas is introduced into the pipes to prevent unsafe air ingress that could lead to an explosive mixture.

On many Norwegian installations the flare system is designed differently. Flare gas recovery systems are deployed which results in no flaring during continuous operations.

Flare gas recovery systems improve energy efficiency but they are costly and add additional operational complexity.

3. Returning to gas turbines, all UK offshore gas turbines are open cycle – gas is burned to produce energy and the very hot exhaust gases are vented to the atmosphere. Around 60 -70% of the energy is lost in the exhaust gases.

Some UK fields use this hot gas as a heat source for some of the oil and gas treatment operations hence improving energy efficiency.

There is another option for gas turbines that will significantly improve energy efficiency – combined cycle, and in parallel plans for nuclear power under the green industrial revolution aim to decarbonise supply.

Here the exhaust gases from an open cycle machine are taken to a separate turbine. This additional turbine utilises exhaust heat to produce steam with the steam used to drive a second turbine to generate supplementary electricity. It is the system used in most UK power stations, even as UK low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 across the grid.

Open cycle gas turbines are around 30 – 40% efficient whereas combined cycle turbines are typically 50 – 60%. Clearly deploying a combined cycle will result in a huge greenhouse gas saving.

I have worked on the development of many UK oil and gas fields and combined cycle has rarely been considered.

The reason being is that, despite the clear energy saving, they are too costly and complex to justify deploying offshore.

However that is not the case in Norway where combined cycle is used on Oseberg, Snorre and Eldfisk.

What makes the improved Norwegian energy efficiency practices different from the UK – the answer is clear; the Norwegian CO2 tax.

A tax that makes CO2 a significant part of offshore operating costs.

The consequence being that deploying energy efficient technology is much easier to justify in Norway when compared to the UK.

Do we need a CO2 tax in the UK to meet net zero – I am convinced we do. I am in good company. BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Total are supporting a carbon tax.

Not without justification there has been much criticism of Labour’s recent oil tax plans, alongside proposals for state-owned electricity generation that aim to reshape the power market.

To my mind Labour’s laudable aims to tackle the Climate Emergency would be much better served by supporting a CO2 tax that complements the UK's coal-free energy record by strengthening renewable investment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EPA Telework Policy restricts remote work, balancing work-from-home guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic with flexible schedules, union contracts, OMB guidance, and federal workforce rules, impacting managers, SES staff, and non-bargaining employees nationwide.

Key Points

A directive limiting many EPA staff to two telework days weekly, with pandemic exceptions and flexible schedules.

✅ Limits telework to two days per week for many employees

✅ Allows flexible schedules, including maxiflex, during emergencies

✅ Aligns with OMB, OPM, CDC guidance; honors union agreements

EPA has moved forward on a new policy that would restrict telework even as agency leadership has encouraged staff to work from home during the coronavirus outbreak.

The new EPA order obtained by E&E News would require employees to report to the office at least three days every week.

"Full-time employees are expected to report to the official worksite and duty station a minimum of three (3) days per week," says the order, dated as approved on Feb. 27. It went into effect March 15 — that night, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler authorized telework for the entire agency due to the pandemic.

The order focuses on EPA employees' work schedules and gives them new flexibilities that could come in handy during a public health emergency like the COVID-19 virus, when parts of the power sector consider on-site staffing to ensure continuity.

It also stipulates a deep reduction in EPA employees' capability to work remotely, leaving them with two days of telework per week. An agency order on telework, issued in January 2016, said staff could telework full time.

"The EPA supports the use of telework," said that order. "Regular telework may range from one day per pay period up to full time."

An EPA spokeswoman said the new order doesn't change the agency's guidance to staff to work from home during the pandemic.

"The health and safety of our employees is our top priority, and that is why we have requested that all employees telework, even as residential electricity use increases with more people at home, until at least April 3. There is no provision in the work schedules policy, telework policy or collective bargaining agreement that limits this request," said the spokeswoman.

"While EPA did implement the national work schedule policy effective 3/15/2020, it was implemented in order to provide increased work schedule flexibilities for non-bargaining unit employees who were not previously afforded flexible schedules, including maxiflex," she added.

"The implementation of the policy does not currently impact telework opportunities for EPA employees, and EPA has strongly encouraged all staff to telework," she said.

Still, the new order has caused consternation among EPA employees.

One EPA manager described it as another move by the Trump administration to restrict telework across the government.

"Amidst the COVID-19 crisis, this policy seems particularly ill-timed and unwise. It doesn't even give the administration the chance to evaluate the situation once the COVID-19 pandemic passes," said the manager.

"I think this is a dramatic change in the flexibilities available to the EPA employees without any data to support such a drastic move," the manager said. "It has huge ramifications for employees, many of whom commute over an hour each way to the office, increasing air pollution in the process."

Another EPA staffer said, "I honestly think such an order, given current circumstances, would elicit little more than a scoff and a smirk."

The person added, "How tone-deaf and heavy-handed can one administration be?"

Inside EPA first reported on the new order. E&E News obtained the memo independently.

The recently issued policy applies only to non-bargaining-unit employees, including "full-time and part-time" agency staff as well as "supervisors and managers in the competitive, excepted, Senior Level, Scientific and Professional, and Senior Executive Service positions."

In addition, the order covers "Public Health Service Officers, Schedule C, Administratively Determined employees and non-EPA employees serving on Intergovernmental Personnel Act assignments to EPA."

Nevertheless, EPA employees covered under union contracts must adhere to those contracts if the policy runs counter to them.

"If provisions of this order conflict with the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, the provisions of the agreement must be applied," the order says.

EPA has taken a more restrictive approach with the agency's largest union, American Federation of Government Employees Council 238, which represents about 7,500 EPA employees. EPA imposed a contract on the council's bargaining unit employees last July that limited them to one day of telework per week, among other changes that triggered union protests.

EPA and AFGE have since relaunched contract negotiations, and how to handle telework is one of the issues under discussion. Both sides committed to complete those bargaining talks by April 15 and work with the Federal Service Impasses Panel if needed (Greenwire, Feb. 27).

Both sides of the telework debate
EPA's new order has been under consideration for some time.

E&E News obtained a draft version last year. The agency had circulated it for comment in July, noting the proposal "limits the number of days an employee may telework per week," among other changes (Greenwire, Sept. 12, 2019).

EPA, like other federal agencies under the Trump administration, has sought to reduce employees' telework. That effort, though, has run into the headwinds of a global pandemic, with a U.S. grid warning highlighting broader risks, leading agency leaders to reverse course and now encourage staff to work remotely in order to stop the spread of the COVID-19 virus.

Wheeler in an email last week told staff that he authorized telework for employees across the country. Federal worker unions had sought the opportunity for remote work on behalf of EPA employees, and the agency had already relaxed telework policies at various offices the prior week where the coronavirus had begun to take hold.

The EPA spokeswoman said the agency moved toward telework after guidance from other agencies.

"Consistent with [Office of Management and Budget], [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and [Office of Personnel Management] guidance, along with state and local directives, we have taken swift action in regions and at headquarters to implement telework for all employees. We continue to tell all employees to telework," said the spokeswoman.

Wheeler said in a later video message that his expectation was most EPA employees were working from home.

"I understand that this is a difficult and scary time for all of us," said the EPA administrator.

The coronavirus has become a real challenge for EPA, and utilities like BC Hydro Site C updates illustrate broader operational adjustments.

Agency staff have been exposed to the virus while some have tested positive, and nuclear plant workers have raised similar concerns, according to internal emails. That has led to employees self-quarantining while their colleagues worry they may next fall ill (Greenwire, March 20).

One employee said that since EPA's operations have been maintained with staff working from home, even as household electricity bills rise for many, it's harder for the Trump administration to justify restricting remote work.

"With the current climate, I think employees have shown we can keep the agency going with nearly 95% teleworking full time. It makes their argument hard to justify in light of things," said the EPA employee.

The Trump administration overall has pushed for more remote work by the federal workforce in the battle with the COVID-19 virus. The Office of Management and Budget issued guidance to agencies last week "to minimize face-to-face interactions" and "maximize telework across the nation."

Lawmakers have also pushed to expand telework for federal workers due to the virus.

Democratic senators sent a letter last week urging President Trump to issue an executive order directing agencies to use telework.

In addition, Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) introduced legislation that would allow federal employees to telework full time during the pandemic.

Some worry EPA's new order could further sour morale at the agency after the pandemic passes, as other utilities consider measures like unpaid days off to trim costs. Employees may leave if they can't work from home more.

"People will quit EPA over something like this. Maybe that's the goal," said the EPA manager.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

Pumped Storage Hydroelectricity balances renewable energy, stabilizes the grid, and provides large-scale energy storage using reservoirs and reversible turbines, delivering flexible peak power, frequency control, and rapid response to variable wind and solar generation.

Key Points

A reversible hydro system that stores energy by pumping water uphill, then generates flexible peak power.

✅ Balances variable wind and solar with rapid ramping

✅ Stores off-peak electricity in upper reservoirs

✅ Enhances grid stability, frequency control, and reserves

The expense of hydroelectricity is moderately low, making it a serious wellspring of sustainable power. The hydro station burns-through no water, dissimilar to coal or gas plants. The commonplace expense of power from a hydro station bigger than 10 megawatts is 3 to 5 US pennies for every kilowatt hour, and Niagara Falls powerhouse upgrade projects show how modernization can further improve efficiency and reliability. With a dam and supply it is likewise an adaptable wellspring of power, since the sum delivered by the station can be shifted up or down quickly (as meager as a couple of moments) to adjust to changing energy requests.

When a hydroelectric complex is developed, the task creates no immediate waste, and it for the most part has an extensively lower yield level of ozone harming substances than photovoltaic force plants and positively petroleum product fueled energy plants, with calls to invest in hydropower highlighting these benefits. In open-circle frameworks, unadulterated pumped storage plants store water in an upper repository with no normal inflows, while pump back plants use a blend of pumped storage and regular hydroelectric plants with an upper supply that is renewed to a limited extent by common inflows from a stream or waterway.

Plants that don't utilize pumped capacity are alluded to as ordinary hydroelectric plants, and initiatives focused on repowering existing dams continue to expand clean generation; regular hydroelectric plants that have critical capacity limit might have the option to assume a comparable function in the electrical lattice as pumped capacity by conceding yield until required.

The main use for pumped capacity has customarily been to adjust baseload powerplants, however may likewise be utilized to decrease the fluctuating yield of discontinuous fuel sources, while emerging gravity energy storage concepts broaden long-duration options. Pumped capacity gives a heap now and again of high power yield and low power interest, empowering extra framework top limit.

In specific wards, power costs might be near zero or once in a while negative on events that there is more electrical age accessible than there is load accessible to retain it; despite the fact that at present this is infrequently because of wind or sunlight based force alone, expanded breeze and sun oriented age will improve the probability of such events.

All things considered, pumped capacity will turn out to be particularly significant as an equilibrium for exceptionally huge scope photovoltaic age. Increased long-distance bandwidth, including hydropower imports from Canada, joined with huge measures of energy stockpiling will be a critical piece of directing any enormous scope sending of irregular inexhaustible force sources. The high non-firm inexhaustible power entrance in certain districts supplies 40% of yearly yield, however 60% might be reached before extra capaciy is fundamental.

Pumped capacity plants can work with seawater, despite the fact that there are extra difficulties contrasted with utilizing new water. Initiated in 1966, the 240 MW Rance flowing force station in France can incompletely function as a pumped storage station. At the point when elevated tides happen at off-top hours, the turbines can be utilized to pump more seawater into the repository than the elevated tide would have normally gotten. It is the main enormous scope power plant of its sort.

Alongside energy mechanism, pumped capacity frameworks help control electrical organization recurrence and give save age. Warm plants are substantially less ready to react to abrupt changes in electrical interest, and can see higher thermal PLF during periods of reduced hydro generation, conceivably causing recurrence and voltage precariousness.

Pumped storage plants, as other hydroelectric plants, including new BC generating stations, can react to stack changes in practically no time. Pumped capacity hydroelectricity permits energy from discontinuous sources, (for example, sunlight based, wind) and different renewables, or abundance power from consistent base-load sources, (for example, coal or atomic) to be put something aside for times of more popularity.

The repositories utilized with siphoned capacity are tiny when contrasted with ordinary hydroelectric dams of comparable force limit, and creating periods are regularly not exactly a large portion of a day. This technique produces power to gracefully high top requests by moving water between repositories at various heights.

Now and again of low electrical interest, the abundance age limit is utilized to pump water into the higher store. At the point when the interest gets more noteworthy, water is delivered once more into the lower repository through a turbine. Pumped capacity plans at present give the most monetarily significant methods for enormous scope matrix energy stockpiling and improve the every day limit factor of the age framework. Pumped capacity isn't a fuel source, and shows up as a negative number in postings.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Global Adjustment and ICI balance hydro rates, renewable cost shift, and peak demand. Class A and Class B customers face demand response decisions amid pandemic occupancy uncertainty and volatile GA charges through 2022.

Key Points

A pricing model where GA costs and ICI peak allocation shape Class A/B bills, driven by renewables cost shifts.

✅ Renewable cost shift trims GA; larger Class A savings expected.

✅ Class A peak strategy returns; occupancy uncertainty persists.

✅ Class B faces volatile GA; limited levers beyond efficiency.

Ontario’s large commercial electricity customers can approach the looming annual decision about their billing structure for the 12 months beginning July 1 with the assurance of long-term relief on a portion of their costs, amid changes coming for electricity consumers that could affect planning. That’s to be weighed against uncertainties around energy demand and whether a locked-in cost allocation formula that looked favourable in pre-pandemic times will remain so until June 30, 2022.

“The biggest unknown is we just don’t know when the people are coming back,” Jon Douglas, director of sustainability with Menkes Property Management Services, reflected during a webinar sponsored by the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) of Greater Toronto last week. “The occupancy in our office buildings this fall, and going into the new year, could really impact the outcome of the decision.”

After a year of operational upheaval and more modifications to provincial electricity pricing policies, BOMA Toronto’s regularly scheduled workshop ahead of the June 15 deadline for eligible customers to opt into the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI) program had a lot of ground to cover. Notably, beginning in January, all commercial customers have seen a reduction in the global adjustment (GA) component of their monthly hydro bills after the Ontario government shifted costs associated with contracted non-hydroelectric renewable supply to reduce the burden on industrial ratepayers from electricity rates to the general provincial account — a move that trims approximately $258 million per month from the total GA charged to industrial and commercial customers. However, they won’t garner the full benefit of that until 2022 since they’re currently repaying about $333 million in GA costs that were deferred in April, May and June of 2020.

Renewable cost shift pares the global adjustment
For now, Ontario government officials estimate the renewable cost shift equates to a 12 per cent discount relative to 2020 prices, even as typical bills may rise about 2% as fixed pricing ends in some cases. Once last year’s GA deferral is repaid at the end of 2021, they project the average Class A customer participating in the ICI program should realize a 16 per cent saving on the total hydro bill, while Class B customers paying the GA on a volumetric per kilowatt-hour (kWh) basis will see a slightly more moderate 15 per cent decrease.

“This is the biggest change to electricity pricing that’s happened since the introduction of ICI,” Tim Christie, director of electricity policy, economics and system planning for Ontario’s Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, told online workshop attendees. “The government is funding the out-of-market costs of renewables. It does tail off into the 2030s as those contracts (for wind, solar and biomass generation) expire, but over the next eight-ish years, it’s pretty steady at around just over $3 billion per year.”

Extrapolating from 2020 costs, he pegged average electricity costs at roughly 9.1 cents/kWh for Class A commercial customers and 13.2 cents/kWh for Class B, a point of concern for Ontario manufacturers facing high rates as well. However, energy management specialists suggest actual 2021 numbers haven’t proved that out.

“In commercial buildings, we’re averaging 10 to 12 cents for Class A in 2021, and we’re seeing more than that for about 14, 15 cents for Class B,” reported Scott Rouse, managing partner with the consulting firm, Energy@Work.

GA costs for Class B customers dropped nearly 30 per cent in the first four months of 2021 compared to the last four months of 2020, when they averaged 11.8 cents/kWh. Thus far, though, there have been significant month-to-month fluctuations, with a low of 5.04 cents/kWh in February and a high of 10.9 cents/kWh in April contributing to the four-month average of 8.3 cents/kWh.

“In 2020, system-wide GA very often averaged more than $1 billion per month,” Rouse said. “This February it dropped to $500 million, which was really quite surprising. So it is a very volatile cost.”

Although welcome, the renewable cost shift does alter the payback on energy-saving investments, particularly for demand response mechanisms like energy storage. When combined with pandemic-related uncertainty and a series of policy and program reversals alongside calls to clean up Ontario’s hydro policy in recent years, the industry’s appetite for some more capital-intensive technologies appears to be flagging.

“Volatility puts a pause on some of the innovation,” said Terry Flynn, general manager with BentallGreenOak and chair of BOMA Toronto’s energy committee. “It could be a leading edge, but it might be a bleeding edge that won’t bear any fruit because the way the commodity costs are structured will change.”

“There’s kind of a wait-and-see approach on some of these bigger investments,” Douglas concurred.

Industrial Conservation Initiative underpins commercial class divide
Turning to the ICI, Class A customers — defined as those with average monthly energy demand of at least 1 megawatt (MW) — encountered some unexpected changes to the program rules during 2020. Meanwhile, Class B customers — encompassing the vast share of commercial properties smaller than about 350,000 square feet — confront the persistent reality of electricity cost allocation that offloads the burden from larger players onto them.

Through the ICI, participating Class A customers pay a share of the global adjustment that’s prorated to their energy use during the five hours of the period from May 1 to April 30 when the highest overall system demand is recorded. This gives Class A customers the opportunity to lock in a favourable factor for calculating their share of monthly system-wide global adjustment costs if they can successful project and curtail energy loads during those five hours of peak demand. On the flipside, Class B customers pay the remainder of those system-wide costs, on a straightforward per-kWh basis, once Class A payments have been reconciled.

“Class B has sometimes been regarded as the forgotten middle child of the customer classes in Ontario where all the shifted costs in the system kind of pile up,” acknowledged Mark Olsheski, vice president, energy and environment, with Sussex Strategy Group. “Likewise, there can be big unpredictable and uncontrollable swings in the global adjustment rate from month to month and, outside of pure energy efficiency, there really is precious little opportunity or empowerment for a Class B customer to take actions to lower their bills.”

Nevertheless, COVID-19 presents a few extra hiccups for Class A customers this year. Conventionally, late May is when they receive notification of the cost allocation factor that would be used to determine their GA for the upcoming July 1 to June 30 period. This year, though, all current ICI participants will retain the factor they secured by responding to the five hours of peak demand during the 12 months from May 1, 2019 to April 30, 2020 after the Ontario government placed a temporary halt on the peak demand response aspect of the program last summer. Regardless, eligible ICI participants must formally opt into the program by June 15 or they will be billed as Class B customers.

Peak chasing resumes for summer 2021
Since peak demand hours conventionally occur from June to September, Class A customers will once again be studying forecasts intently and preparing to respond via Peak Perks as the heat wave season sets in. That should help alleviate some of the system stresses that arose last summer — prompting policy-makers to reject lobbying for a continued pause on peak demand response.

“The policy rationale was to allow consumers to focus on their operations when recovering from COVID as opposed to reducing peaks. The other issue was that we did not expect the peaks to be high last summer given COVID shutdowns,” Christie recounted. “But due to some hot weather, more people at home and also the lack of ICI response, we saw peaks we haven’t seen in many, many years come up last summer. So the peak hiatus has ended and this summer we’ll be back to responding to ICI as per normal.”

Among Class A customers, owners/managers of office and retail facilities generally have the most to lose from a billing formula tied to the energy demand of more densely occupied buildings in the summer of 2019. However, they could be much more competitively positioned for 2022-23 if their buildings remain below full occupancy and energy demand stays lower than usual this summer.

“Where we can improve is the IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) and the LDCs (local distribution companies) need to help customers get their real-time data, especially in light of the phantom demand issue, interpret their bills and their Class A versus B scenarios much more easily and comprehensively,” urged Lee Hodgkinson, vice president, technical services, sustainability and ESG, with Dream Unlimited. “ I look for APIs (application programming interface) and direct data flow from the LDCs to the building owners so that we can access that data really easily.”

Given Class A’s historic advantages, few eligible ICI participants are expected to migrate out to Class B. From a sustainability perspective, there’s perhaps more cause to question how the ICI’s 1-MW threshold encourages strategies to move in the other direction.

“You could jack up demand in some buildings and get them into Class A basically by firing up the chillers on the weekend and then pouring cooling outside to get rid of it,” Douglas noted. “That has nothing to do with climate change strategy or sustainability, but it’s a cost- saving strategy, and, sometimes, when you look at the math, it’s hundreds of thousands of dollars you can save.”

Brian Hewson, vice president, consumer protection and industry performance with the Ontario Energy Board (OEB), confirmed the OEB is currently scrutinizing the discrepancy that leaves Class B as the only consumer group with no flexibility to curtail energy load during higher-priced periods, and will be providing advice to the Ministry of Energy. In the interim, that status does, at least, simplify tactics.

“Just reduce your kWh and it doesn’t matter what time of day because you’re paying that fixed rate for 24 hours a day. So if you can curb your demand at night, you get a big bang for your dollar,” Rouse advised.

“We do talk about rates a lot, but if you’re not using it, you’re not paying for it,” Flynn agreed. “A lot of our focus is still on really to try to reduce the number of kilowatts that we use. That seems to be the best thing to do.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. Russian Uranium Import Ban reshapes nuclear fuel supply, bolstering energy security, domestic enrichment, and sanctions policy while diversifying reactor-grade uranium sources and supply chains through allies, waivers, and funding to sustain utilities and reliability.

Key Points

A U.S. law halting Russian uranium imports to boost energy security diversify nuclear fuel and revive U.S. enrichment.

✅ Cuts Russian revenue; reduces geopolitical risk.

✅ Funds U.S. enrichment; supports reactor fuel supply.

✅ Enables waivers to prevent utility shutdowns.

In a move aimed at reducing reliance on Russia and fostering domestic energy security for the long term, the United States has banned imports of Russian uranium, a critical component of nuclear fuel. This decision, signed into law by President Biden in May 2024, marks a significant shift in the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain and has far-reaching economic and geopolitical implications.

For decades, Russia has been a major supplier of enriched uranium, a processed form of uranium used to power nuclear reactors. The U.S. relies on Russia for roughly a quarter of its enriched uranium needs, feeding the nation's network of 94 nuclear reactors operated by utilities which generate nearly 20% of the country's electricity. This dependence has come under scrutiny in recent years, particularly following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The ban on Russian uranium is a multifaceted response. First and foremost, it aims to cripple a key revenue stream for the Russian government. Uranium exports are a significant source of income for Russia, and by severing this economic tie, the U.S. hopes to weaken Russia's financial capacity to wage war.

Second, the ban serves as a national energy security measure. Relying on a potentially hostile nation for such a critical resource creates vulnerabilities. The possibility of Russia disrupting uranium supplies, either through political pressure or in the event of a wider conflict, is a major concern. Diversifying the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain mitigates this risk.

Third, the ban is intended to revitalize the domestic uranium mining and enrichment industry, building on earlier initiatives such as Trump's uranium order announced previously. The U.S. has historically been a major uranium producer, but environmental concerns and competition from cheaper foreign sources led to a decline in domestic production. The ban, coupled with $2.7 billion in federal funding allocated to expand domestic uranium enrichment capacity, aims to reverse this trend.

The transition away from Russian uranium won't be immediate. The law includes a grace period until mid-August 2024, and waivers can be granted to utilities facing potential shutdowns if alternative suppliers aren't readily available. Finding new sources of enriched uranium will require forging partnerships with other uranium-producing nations like Kazakhstan, Canada on minerals cooperation, and Australia.

The long-term success of this strategy hinges on several factors. First, successfully ramping up domestic uranium production will require overcoming regulatory hurdles and addressing environmental concerns, alongside nuclear innovation to modernize the fuel cycle. Second, securing reliable alternative suppliers at competitive prices is crucial, and supportive policy frameworks such as the Nuclear Innovation Act now in law can help. Finally, ensuring the continued safe and efficient operation of existing nuclear reactors is paramount.

The ban on Russian uranium is a bold move with significant economic and geopolitical implications. While challenges lie ahead, the potential benefits of a more secure and domestically sourced nuclear fuel supply chain are undeniable. The success of this initiative will be closely watched not only by the U.S. but also by other nations seeking to lessen their dependence on Russia for critical resources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News