EPA reveals 44 higher risk coal ash sites

Ontario NDP Hydro Plan proposes ending time-of-use pricing, buying back Hydro One, lowering electricity rates, curbing rural delivery fees, and restoring public ownership to ease household bills amid debates with PCs and Liberals over costs.

Key Points

A plan to end time-of-use pricing, buy back Hydro One, and cut bills via public ownership and fair delivery fees.

✅ End time-of-use pricing; normal schedules without penalties

✅ Repurchase Hydro One; restore public ownership

✅ Cap rural delivery fees; address oversupply to cut rates

Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath says her party’s hydro plan will reduce families’ electricity bills, a theme also seen in Manitoba Hydro debates and the NDP is the only choice to get Hydro One back in public hands.

Howarth outlined the plan Saturday morning outside the home of a young family who say they struggle with their electricity bills — in particular over the extra laundry they now have after the birth of their twin boys.

An NDP government would end time-of-use pricing, which charges higher rates during peak times and lower rates after hours, “so that people aren’t punished for cooking dinner at dinner time,” Horwath said at a later campaign stop in Orillia, “so people can live normal lives and still afford their hydro bill.”

#google#

An NDP government would end time-of-use pricing, which gives lower rates for off-peak usage, Howarth said, separate from a recent subsidized hydro plan during COVID-19. The change would mean families wouldn't be "forced to wait until night when the pricing is lower to do laundry," and wouldn't have to rearrange their lives around chores.

The pricing scheme was supposed to lower prices and help smooth out demand for electricity, especially during peak times, but has failed, she said.

In order to lower hydro bills, Horwath said an NDP government would buy back shares of Hydro One sold off under the Wynne government, which she said has led to high prices and exorbitant executive pay among executives. The NDP plan would also make sure rural families do not pay more in delivery fees than city dwellers, and curb the oversupply of energy to bring prices down.

Critics have said the NDP plan is too costly and will take a long time to implement, and investors see too many unknowns about Hydro One.

"The NDP's plan to buy back Hydro One and continue moving forward with a carbon tax will cost taxpayers billions," said Melissa Lantsman, a spokesperson for PC Leader Doug Ford.

"Only Doug Ford has a plan to reduce hydro rates and put money back in people's pockets. We'll reduce your hydro bill by 12 per cent."

Ford has said he will fire Hydro One CEO Mayo Schmidt, and has dubbed him the $6-million-dollar man.

Horwath has said both Ford and Liberal Leader Kathleen Wynne will end up costing Ontarians more in electricity if one of them is elected come June 7. Their "hydro scheme is the wrong plan," she said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Alberta-BC Pipeline Dispute centers on Trans Mountain expansion, diluted bitumen shipments, federal approval, spill response capacity, and electricity trade, as Alberta suspends power talks and Ottawa insists the Kinder Morgan project proceeds in national interest.

Key Points

Dispute over Trans Mountain expansion, bitumen limits, and jurisdiction between Alberta, B.C., and Canada.

✅ Alberta suspends BC electricity talks as leverage

✅ Ottawa affirms federal approval and spill response

✅ BC plans advisory panel on diluted bitumen risks

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley says her government is suspending talks with British Columbia on the purchase of electricity from the western province.

It’s the first step in Alberta’s fight against the B.C. government’s proposal to obstruct the Kinder Morgan oil pipeline expansion project by banning increased shipments of diluted bitumen to the province’s coast.

Up to $500 million annually for B.C.’s coffers from electricity exports hangs in the balance, Notley said.

“We’re prepared to do what it takes to get this pipeline built — whatever it takes,” she told a news conference Thursday after speaking with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on the phone.

Notley said she told Trudeau, who’s in Edmonton for a town-hall meeting, that the federal government needs to act decisively to end the dispute.

Speaking on Edmonton talk radio station CHED earlier in the day, Trudeau said the pipeline expansion is in the national interest and will go ahead, even as the federal government undertakes a study on electrification across sectors.

“That pipeline is going to get built,” Trudeau said. “We will stand by our decision. We will ensure that the Kinder Morgan pipeline gets built.”

B.C.’s environment minister has said his minority government plans to ban increased shipments until it can determine that shippers are prepared and able to properly clean up a spill, and, separately, has implemented an electricity rate freeze affecting consumers. He said he will establish an independent scientific advisory panel to study the issue.

The move infuriated Notley, who has accused B.C. of trying to change the rules after the federal government gave the project the green light. B.C. has the right to regulate how any spills would be cleaned up, but can’t dictate what flows through pipelines, she said.

Trudeau said Canada needs to get Alberta’s oil safely to markets other than the U.S. energy market today. He said the federal government did the research and has spent billions on spill response.

“The Kinder Morgan pipeline is not a danger to the B.C. coast,” he said.

Notley said she thanked Trudeau for his assurance that the project will go ahead, but the federal government has to do more to ensure the pipeline’s expansion.

“This is not an Alberta-B.C. issue. This is a Canada-B.C. issue,” she said. “This kind of uncertainty is bad for investment and bad for working people

“Enough is enough. We need to get these things built.”

B.C. Premier John Horgan said his government consulted Alberta and Ottawa about his province’s intentions, noting that Columbia River Treaty talks also shape regional electricity policy.

“I don’t see what the problem is,” Horgan said Thursday at a school opening north of Kelowna, B.C. “It’s within our jurisdiction to put in place regulations to protect the public interest.

“That’s what we are doing.”

He downplayed any possibility of court action or sanctions by Alberta.

“There’s nothing to take to court,” Horgan said. “We are consulting with the people of B.C. It’s way too premature to talk about those sorts of issues.

“Sabre-rattling doesn’t get you very far.”

Speaking in Ottawa, Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr wouldn’t say what Canada might do if British Columbia implements its regulation.

“That’s speculative,” said Carr.

He noted at this point, B.C. has just pledged to consult. He said the federal government heard from thousands of people before the pipeline was approved.

“That’s what they have announced — an intention to consult. We have already consulted.”

B.C.’s proposal creates more uncertainty for Kinder Morgan’s already-delayed Trans Mountain expansion project that would nearly triple the capacity of its pipeline system to 890,000 barrels a day.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

FERC Transmission Rule accelerates grid modernization and interregional high-voltage lines, enabling renewable energy integration, load balancing, and reliability to advance net-zero goals while strengthening resilience, capacity expansion, and decarbonization across U.S. regional transmission organizations.

Key Points

A federal policy mandating interregional grid planning and cost sharing to expand high-voltage lines for renewables.

✅ Expands interregional high-voltage transmission capacity

✅ Improves reliability, resilience, and load balancing

✅ Aligns cost allocation and long-term planning for renewables

On May 13th, 2024, the US took a monumental step towards its clean energy goals. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved a long-awaited rule designed to significantly expand the transmission of renewable energy across the nation's power grid, a US grid overhaul that many advocates say was overdue. This decision aligns with President Biden's ambitious plan to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, with renewable energy playing a central role.

The new rule tackles a critical bottleneck hindering the widespread adoption of renewables – transmission infrastructure. Unlike traditional power plants like coal or natural gas that run constantly, solar and wind power generation fluctuates with weather conditions. This variability poses a challenge for the existing grid, which is not designed to efficiently handle large-scale integration of these intermittent sources, helping explain why the grid isn't 100% renewable today.

The FERC rule aims to address this by promoting the construction of new, high-voltage transmission lines, particularly those connecting different regions, where grid limitations in the Pacific Northwest have highlighted the need for better interregional transfers. This improved connectivity would allow for a more strategic distribution of renewable energy. Imagine solar energy harnessed in the sun-drenched Southwest being transmitted eastward to meet peak demand during hot summer days on the Atlantic Coast.

The benefits of this expanded transmission network are multifaceted. First, it unlocks the full potential of renewable resources by allowing for their efficient utilization across the country, a trend consistent with wind and solar surpassing coal in U.S. generation. Abundant wind power in the Midwest could be utilized on the West Coast, while surplus solar energy from the South could supplement demand in the Northeast.

Second, a more robust grid with a higher capacity for renewables reduces reliance on fossil fuel-based power plants and complements other ways to meet decarbonization goals across sectors. This translates to cleaner air and a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to the fight against climate change.

Third, a modernized grid with improved long-distance transmission bolsters the nation's energy security. Extreme weather events, a growing concern due to climate change, can disrupt energy production in specific regions. This interconnected grid would provide a buffer, ensuring a more reliable and resilient power supply and helping put regions on the road to 100% renewables even during adverse weather conditions.

The FERC's decision is a win for environmental groups and the renewable energy industry. They see it as a critical step towards a cleaner energy future and a significant driver of job creation in the construction and maintenance of new transmission lines. However, concerns have been raised by some stakeholders, particularly investor-owned utilities. They worry about the potential cost burden associated with building these expansive new lines, and recent reports of stalled grid spending underscore those concerns and the need for efficient cost allocation mechanisms. Striking a balance between efficiency, affordability, and environmental responsibility will be crucial for the successful implementation of this policy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California income-based utility charges face bipartisan pushback as the PUC weighs fixed fees for PG&E, SDG&E, and Southern California Edison, reshaping rate design, electricity affordability, energy equity, and privacy amid proposed per-kWh reductions.

Key Points

PUC-approved fixed fees tied to household income for PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE, offset by lower per-kWh rates.

✅ Proposed fixed fees: $51 SCE, $73.31 SDG&E, $50.92 PG&E

✅ Critics warn admin, privacy, legal risks and higher bills for savers

✅ Backers say lower-income pay less; kWh rates cut ~33% in PG&E area

Efforts are being made across California's political landscape to derail a legislative initiative that introduced income-based utility charges for customers of Southern California Edison and other major utilities.

Legislators from both the Democratic and Republican parties have proposed bills aimed at nullifying the 2022 legislation that established a sliding scale for utility charges based on customer income, a decision made in a late-hour session and subsequently endorsed by Governor Gavin Newsom.

The plan, pending final approval from the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) — all of whose current members were appointed by Governor Newsom — would enable utilities like Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, and PG&E to apply new income-based charges as early as this July.

Among the state legislators pushing back against the income-based charge scheme are Democrats Jacqui Irwin and Marc Berman, along with Republicans Janet Nguyen, Kelly Seyarto, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Scott Wilk, Brian Dahle, Shannon Grove, and Roger Niello.

A cadre of specialists, including economist Ahmad Faruqui who has advised all three utilities implicated in the fee proposal, have outlined several concerns regarding the PUC's pending decision.

Faruqui and his colleagues argue that the proposed charges are excessively high in comparison to national standards, reflecting soaring electricity prices across the state, potentially leading to administrative challenges, legal disputes, and negative unintended outcomes, such as penalizing energy-conservative consumers.

Advocates for the income-based fee model, including The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the National Resources Defense Council, argue it would result in higher charges for wealthier consumers and reduced fees for those with lower incomes. They also believe that the utilities plan to decrease per kilowatt-hour rates as part of a broader rate structure review to balance out the new fees.

However, even supporters like TURN and the Natural Resources Defense Council acknowledge that the income-based fee model is not a comprehensive solution to making soaring electricity bills more affordable.

If implemented, California would have the highest income-based utility fees in the country, with averages far surpassing the national average of $11.15, as reported by EQ Research:

• Southern California Edison would charge $51.
• San Diego Gas & Electric would levy $73.31.
• PG&E would set fees at $50.92.

The proposal has raised concerns among state legislators about the additional financial burden on Californians already struggling with high electricity costs.

Critics highlight several practical challenges, including the PUC's task of assessing customers' income levels, a process fraught with privacy concerns, potential errors, and constitutional questions regarding access to tax information.

Economists have pointed out further complications, such as the difficulty in accurately assessing incomes for out-of-state property owners and the variability of customers' incomes over time.

The proposed income-based charges would differ by income bracket within the PG&E service area, for example, with lower-income households facing lower fixed charges and higher-income households facing higher charges, alongside a proposed 33% reduction in electricity rates to help mitigate the fixed charge impact.

Yet, the economists warn that most customers, particularly low-usage customers, could end up paying more, essentially rewarding higher consumption and penalizing efficiency.

This legislative approach, they caution, could inadvertently increase costs for moderate users across all income brackets, a sign of major changes to electric bills that could emerge, challenging the very goals it aims to achieve by promoting energy inefficiency.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Accelerates decarbonization with firm, low-carbon baseload power

✅ Enhances grid reliability via SMRs and advanced fuel cycles

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

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

Here are the balance of his remarks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Inventoried Energy Program pays ISO-NE generators for fuel security to boost winter reliability, with FERC approval, covering fossil, nuclear, hydropower, and batteries, complementing capacity markets to enhance grid resilience during severe cold snaps.

Key Points

ISO-NE program paying generators to hold fuel or energy reserves for emergencies, boosting winter reliability.

✅ FERC-approved stopgap for 2023 and 2024 winter seasons

✅ Pays for on-site fuel or stored energy during cold-trigger events

✅ Open to fossil, nuclear, hydro, batteries; limited gas participation

Electricity ratepayers in New England will pay tens of millions of dollars to fossil fuel and nuclear power plants later this decade under a program that proponents say is needed to keep the lights on during severe winters but which critics call a subsidy with little benefit to consumers or the grid, even as Connecticut is pushing a market overhaul across the region.

Last week the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said ISO-New England, which runs the six-state power grid, can create what it calls the Inventoried Energy Program or IEP. This basically will pay certain power plants to stockpile of fuel for use in emergencies during two upcoming winters as longer-term solutions are developed.

The federal commission called it a reasonable short-term solution to avoid brownouts which doesn’t favor any given technology.

Not all agree, however, including FERC Commissioner Richard Glick, who wrote a fiery dissent to the other three commissioners.

“The program will hand out tens of millions of dollars to nuclear, coal and hydropower generators without any indication that those payments will cause the slightest change in those generators’ behavior,” Glick wrote. “Handing out money for nothing is a windfall, not a just and reasonable rate.”

The program is the latest reaction by ISO-NE to the winter of 2013-14 when New England almost saw brownouts because of a shortage of natural gas to create electricity during a pair of week-long deep freezes.

ISO-New England says the situation is more critical now because of the possible retirement of the gas-fired Mystic Generating Station in Massachusetts. As with closed nuclear plants such as Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim in Massachusetts, power plant owners say lower electricity prices, partly due to cheap renewables and partly to stagnant demand, means they can’t be profitable just by selling power.

Programs like the IEP are meant to subsidize such plants – “incentivize” is the industry term – even though some argue there is no need to subsidize nuclear in deregulated markets so they’ll stay open if they are needed.

The IEP approved last week will be applied to the winters of 2023 and 2024, after a different subsidy program expires. It sets prices, despite warnings about rushing pricing changes from industry groups, for stocking certain amounts of fuel and payments during any “trigger” event, defined as a day when the average of high and low temperatures at Bradley International Airport in Connecticut is no more than 17 degrees Fahrenheit.

These payments will be made on top of a complex system of grid auctions used to decide how much various plants get paid for generating electricity at which times.

ISO-NE estimates the new program will cost between $102 million and $148 million each winter, depending on weather and market conditions.

It says the payments are open to plants that burn oil, coal, nuclear fuel, wood chips or trash; utility-scale battery storage facilities; and hydropower dams “that store water in a pond or reservoir.” Natural gas plants can participate if they guarantee to have fuel available, but that seems less likely because of winter heating contracts.

A major complaint and groups that filed petitions opposing the project is that ISO-NE presented little supporting evidence of how prices, amount and overall cost were determined. ISO-NE argued that there wasn’t time for such analysis before the Mystic shutdown, and FERC agreed.

“The proposal is a step in the right direction … while ISO-NE finishes developing a long-term market solution,” the commission said in its ruling.

The program is the latest example of complexities facing the nation’s electricity system evolves in the face of solar and wind power, which produce electricity so cheaply that they can render traditional power uneconomic but which can’t always produce power on demand, prompting discussions of Texas grid improvements among policymakers. Another major factor is climate change, which has increased the pressure to support renewable alternatives to plants that burn fossil fuels, as well as stagnant electricity demand caused by increased efficiency.

Opponents, including many environmental groups, say electricity utilities and regulators are too quick to prop up existing systems, as the 145-mile Maine transmission line debate shows, built when electricity was sent one way from a few big plants to many customers. They argue that to combat climate change as well as limit cost, the emphasis must be on developing “non-wire alternatives” such as smart systems for controlling demand, in order to take advantage of the current system in which electricity goes two ways, such as from rooftop solar back into the grid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News