The United Nations has given a green light to the first of a new generation of carbon offset programs designed to bring carbon reductions to a mass market in developing nations.
The panel that oversees the running of the U.N.'s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) gave in-principle approval during a meeting to the project that will deploy 30 million compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) in Mexico.
Under the project designed by energy efficiency project developer Cool nrg International, the CFLs will be distributed in phases over the next two to three years with the aim of generating up to 7.5 million U.N. offsets called Certified Emission Reductions, or CERs.
Each offset represents the equivalent of one ton of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming.
Dutch firm Eneco Energy Trade B.V. has agreed to buy the CERs in a deal brokered by TFS Green. Spot CERs traded at around 12.95 euros a ton.
Under the CDM, companies in rich nations can invest in emissions cuts made by clean energy projects in the developing world and earn CERs than can be sold for profit or used to meet greenhouse gas targets.
CDM has been criticized for only focusing on individual projects and for the high administration costs of getting U.N. approval. Trying to group smaller projects that bring emissions reductions to large numbers of people, such as energy efficient lighting schemes, has proven expensive.
Under what is called programmatic CDM, developers can deploy projects at scale in theoretically unlimited numbers providing each uses the same approved standards or methodologies from the start. This keeps fees to a minimum.
The Mexico project plans to have 30 CDM program activities, to ensure full deployment of the 30 million CFLs, said Phil Cohn, Cool nrg's head of carbon markets and accreditation.
The distribution of the first 1 million CFLs will occur during October-November, he told Reuters from London.
Asked how the project would ensure the CFLs were not sold once people received them, Cohn said strict monitoring of households and limiting the number of CFLs to each home were key parts of the design.
Each household would receive four CFLs, and details such names and addresses and utility bill numbers taken for tracking.
"People also need to bring four old incandescent bulbs and exchange them, so this creates a barrier to stockpiling CFLs," Cohn said. "As part of the ongoing monitoring, we survey a sample of households to see the proportion of CFLs that are in operation."
Cohn said the CDM executive board had requested minor clarifications and expected the panel to formally approve the project within the coming weeks.
He also said the design team had been working for the project to be awarded the premium Gold Standard certification and expected this to follow formal registration.
"This is a groundbreaking deal," said Chris Halliwell from brokers TFS in Melbourne, Australia.
"We believe it will strongly encourage the programmatic approach particularly across Asia, and bring home the message of sustainable yet efficient ways of generating carbon credits on a large scale."
Northern Ireland No-Deal Power Contingency outlines Whitehall plans to deploy thousands of generators on barges in the Irish Sea, safeguard the electricity market, and avert blackouts if Brexit disrupts imports from the Republic of Ireland.
Key Points
A UK Whitehall plan to prevent NI blackouts by deploying generators and protecting cross-border electricity flows.
✅ Barges in Irish Sea to host temporary power generators
✅ Mitigates loss of EU market access in a no-deal Brexit
✅ Ensures NI supply if Republic cuts electricity exports
Such a scenario could see thousands of electricity generators being requisitioned at short notice and positioned on barges in the Irish Sea, even as Great Britain's generation mix shapes wider supply dynamics, to help keep the region going, a Whitehall document quoted by the Financial Times states.
An emergency operation could see equipment being brought back from places like Afghanistan, where the UK still has a military presence, the newspaper said.
The extreme situation could arise because Northern Ireland shares a single energy market with the Irish Republic, where Irish grid price spikes have heightened concern about stability.
The region relies on energy imports from the Republic because it does not have enough generating capacity itself, and the UK is aiming to negotiate a deal to allow that single electricity market on the island of Ireland to continue post-EU withdrawal, while virtual power plant proposals for UK homes are explored to avoid outages, the FT stated.
However, if no Brexit deal is agreed Whitehall fears suppliers in the Irish Republic could cut off power because the UK would no longer be part of the European electricity market, and a recent short supply warning from National Grid underscores the risk.
In a bid to prevent blackouts in Northern Ireland in a worse case situation the Government would need to put thousands of generators into place, even as an emergency energy plan has reportedly not gone ahead nationwide, according to the report.
And officials fear they may need to commandeer some generators from the military in such a scenario, the FT reports.
An official was quoted by the newspaper as saying the preparations were “gob-smacking”.
California Rolling Blackouts expose grid reliability risks amid a heatwave, as CAISO curtails power while solar output fades at sunset, wind stalls, and scarce natural gas and nuclear capacity plus PG&E issues strain imports.
Key Points
Grid outages during heatwaves from low reserves, fading solar, weak wind, and limited firm capacity.
✅ Heatwave demand rose as solar output dropped at sunset
✅ Limited imports and gas, nuclear shortfalls cut reserves
✅ Policy, pricing, and maintenance gaps increased outage risk
Millions of Californians were denied electrical power and thus air conditioning during a heatwave, raising the risk of heatstroke and death, particularly among the elderly and sick.
The blackouts come at a time when people, particularly the elderly, are forced to remain indoors due to Covid-19, and as later heat waves would test the grid again statewide.
At first, the state’s electrical grid operator last night asked customers to voluntarily reduce electricity use. But after lapses in power supply pushed reserves to dangerous levels it declared a “Stage 3 emergency” cutting off power to people across the state at 6:30 pm.
The immediate reason for the black-outs was the failure of a 500-megawatt power plant and an out-of-service 750-megawatt unit not being available. “There is nothing nefarious going on here,” said a spokeswoman for California Independent System Operator (CAISO). “We are just trying to run the grid.”
But the underlying reasons that California is experiencing rolling black-outs for the second time in less than a year stem from the state’s climate policies, which California policymakers have justified as necessary to prevent deaths from heatwaves, and which it is increasingly exporting to Western states as a model.
In October, Pacific Gas and Electric cut off power to homes across California to avoid starting forest fires after reports that its power lines may have started fires in recent seasons. The utility and California’s leaders had over the previous decade diverted billions meant for grid maintenance to renewables.
And yesterday, California had to impose rolling blackouts because it had failed to maintain sufficient reliable power from natural gas and nuclear plants, or pay in advance for enough guaranteed electricity imports from other states.
It may be that California’s utilities and their regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission, which is also controlled by Gov. Newsom, didn’t want to spend the extra money to guarantee the additional electricity out of fears of raising California’s electricity prices even more than they had already raised them.
California saw its electricity prices rise six times more than the rest of the United States from 2011 to 2019, helping explain why electricity prices are soaring across the state, due to its huge expansion of renewables. Republicans in the U.S. Congress point to that massive increase to challenge justifications by Democrats to spend $2 trillion on renewables in the name of climate change.
Even though the cost of solar panels declined dramatically between 2011 and 2019, their unreliable and weather-dependent nature meant that they imposed large new costs in the form of storage and transmission to keep electricity as reliable. California’s solar panels and farms were all turning off as the blackouts began, with no help available from the states to the East already in nightfall.
Electricity from solar goes away at the very moment when the demand for electricity rises. “The peak demand was steady in late hours,” said the spokesperson for CAISO, which is controlled by Gov. Gavin Newsom, “and we had thousands of megawatts of solar reducing their output as the sunset.”
The two blackouts in less than a year are strong evidence that the tens of billions that Californians have spent on renewables come with high human, economic, and environmental costs.
Last December, a report by done for PG&E concluded that the utility’s customers could see blackouts double over the next 15 years and quadruple over the next 30.
California’s anti-nuclear policies also contributed to the blackouts. In 2013, Gov. Jerry Brown forced a nuclear power plant, San Onofre, in southern California to close.
Had San Onofre still been operating, there almost certainly would not have been blackouts on Friday as the reserve margin would have been significantly larger. The capacity of San Onofre was double that of the lost generation capacity that triggered the blackout.
California's current and former large nuclear plants are located on the coast, which allows for their electricity to travel shorter distances, and through less-constrained transmission lines than the state’s industrial solar farms, to get to the coastal cities where electricity is in highest demand.
There has been very little electricity from wind during the summer heatwave in California and the broader western U.S., further driving up demand. In fact, the same weather pattern, a stable high-pressure bubble, is the cause of heatwaves, since it brought very low wind for days on end along with very high temperatures.
Things won’t be any better, and may be worse, in the winter, with a looming shortage as it produces far less solar electricity than the summer. Solar plus storage, an expensive attempt to fix problems like what led to this blackout, cannot help through long winters of low output.
California’s electricity prices will continue to rise if it continues to add more renewables to its grid, and goes forward with plans to shut down its last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, in 2025.
Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix.
To manage the increasingly unreliable grid, California will either need to keep its nuclear plant operating, build more natural gas plants, underscoring its reliance on fossil fuels for reliability, or pay ever more money annually to reserve emergency electricity supplies from its neighbors.
After the blackouts last October, Gov. Newsom attacked PG&E Corp. for “greed and mismanagement” and named a top aide, Ana Matosantos, to be his “energy czar.”
“This is not the new normal, and this does not take 10 years to solve,” Newsom said. “The entire system needs to be reimagined.”
PG&E Public Safety Power Shutoff reduces wildfire risk during extreme winds, triggering de-energization across the North Bay and Sierra Foothills under red flag warnings, with safety inspections and staged restoration to improve grid resilience.
Key Points
A utility protocol to de-energize lines during extreme fire weather, reducing ignition risks and improving grid safety.
✅ Triggered by red flag warnings, humidity, wind, terrain
✅ Temporary de-energization of transmission and distribution lines
✅ Inspections precede phased restoration to minimize wildfire risk
PG&E purposefully shut off electricity to nearly 60,000 Northern California customers Sunday night, aiming to mitigate wildfire risks from power lines during extreme winds.
Pacific Gas and Electric planned to restore power to 70 percent of affected customers in the North Bay and Sierra Foothills late Monday night. As crews inspect lines for safety by helicopter, vehicles and on foot, the remainder will have power sometime Tuesday.
While it was the first time the company shut off power for public safety, PG&E announced its criteria and procedures for such an event in June, said spokesperson Paul Doherty. After wildfires devastated Northern California's wine country last October, he added, PG&E developed its community wildfire safety program division to make power grids and communities more resilient, and prepares for winter storm season through enhanced local response.
Two sagging PG&E power lines caused one of those wildfires during heavy winds, killing four people and injuring a firefighter, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection determined earlier this month. Trees or tree branches hitting PG&E power lines started another four wildfires in October 2017. Altogether, the power company has been blamed for igniting 13 wildfires last year.
"We're adapting our electric system our operating practices to improve safety and reliability," Doherty said of the safety program. "That's really the bottom line for us."
Turning off power to so many customers was a "last resort given the extreme fire danger conditions these communities are experiencing," Pat Hogan, senior vice president of electric operations, said in a statement. Conditions that led the company to shut off power included the National Weather Service's red flag fire warnings, humidity levels, sustained winds, temperature, dry fuel and local terrain, Doherty said, amid possible rolling blackouts during grid strain.
The company de-energized more than 78 miles of transmission lines and more than 2,150 miles of distribution power lines Sunday night. Many schools in the area were closed Monday because of the planned power outage, highlighting unequal access to electricity across communities.
Late Saturday and early Sunday, PG&E warned 97,000 customers in 12 counties that the shut off might go into effect. Through automated calls, texts and emails, the company encouraged customers to have drinking water, canned food, flashlights, prescriptions and baby supplies on hand.
Power was also turned off in Southern California on Monday.
San Diego Gas & Electric turned off service to about 360 customers near Cleveland National Forest, where multiple fires have scorched large swaths of land in recent years.
SDG&E has pre-emptively shut off power to customers in the past, most recently in December when 14,000 customers went without power.
Southern California Edison, the primary electric provider across Southern California — including Los Angeles — has a similar power shutoff program. As of Monday night, SCE had yet to turn off power in any of its service areas, a spokesperson told USA TODAY.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
IESO Fictitious Demand Error inflated HOEP in the Ontario electricity market, after embedded generation was mis-modeled; the OEB says double-counted load lifted wholesale prices and shifted costs via the Global Adjustment.
Key Points
An IESO modeling flaw that double-counted load, inflating HOEP and charges in Ontario's wholesale market.
✅ Double-counted unmetered load from embedded generation
✅ Inflated HOEP; shifted costs via Global Adjustment
✅ OEB flagged transparency; exporters paid more
For almost a year, the operator of Ontario’s electricity system erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing prices to spike and hundreds of millions of dollars in extra charges to consumers, according to the provincial energy regulator.
The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) also failed to tell anyone about the error once it noticed and fixed it.
The error likely added between $450 million and $560 million to hourly rates and other charges before it was fixed in April 2017, according to a report released this month by the Ontario Energy Board’s Market Surveillance Panel.
It did this by adding as much as 220 MW of “fictitious demand” to the market starting in May 2016, when the IESO started paying consumers who reduced their demand for power during peak periods. This involved the integration of small-scale embedded generation (largely made up of solar) into its wholesale model for the first time.
The mistake assumed maximum consumption at such sites without meters, and double-counted that consumption.
The OEB said the mistake particularly hurt exporters and some end-users, who did not benefit from a related reduction of a global adjustment rate applicable to other customers.
“The most direct impact of the increase in HOEP (Hourly Ontario Energy Price) was felt by Ontario consumers and exporters of electricity, who paid an artificially high HOEP, to the benefit of generators and importers,” the OEB said.
The mix-up did not result in an equivalent increase in total system costs, because changes to the HOEP are offset by inverse changes to a electricity cost allocation mechanism such as the Global Adjustment rate, the OEB noted.
A chart from the OEB's report shows the time of day when fictitious demand was added to the system, and its influence on hourly rates.
Peak time spikes The OEB said that the fictitious demand “regularly inflated” the hourly price of energy and other costs calculated as a direct function of it.
For almost a year, Ontario's electricity system operator @IESO_Tweets erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing price spikes and hundreds of millions in charges to consumers, @OntEnergyBoard says. @5thEstate reports.
It estimated the average increase to the HOEP was as much as $4.50/MWh, but that price spikes, compounded by scheduled OEB rate changes, would have been much higher during busier times, such as the mid-morning and early evening.
“In times of tight supply, the addition of fictitious demand often had a dramatic inflationary impact on the HOEP,” the report said.
That meant on one summer evening in 2016 the hourly rate jumped to $1,619/MWh, it said, which was the fourth highest in the history of the Ontario wholesale electricity market.
“Additional demand is met by scheduling increasingly expensive supply, thus increasing the market price. In instances where supply is tight and the supply stack is steep, small increases in demand can cause significant increases in the market price.
The OEB questioned why, as of September this year, the IESO had failed to notify its customers or the broader public, amid a broader auditor-regulator dispute that drew political attention, about the mistake and its effect on prices.
“It's time for greater transparency on where electricity costs are really coming from,” said Sarah Buchanan, clean energy program manager at Environmental Defence.
“Ontario will be making big decisions in the coming years about whether to keep our electricity grid clean, or burn more fossil fuels to keep the lights on,” she added. “These decisions need to be informed by the best possible evidence, and that can't happen if critical information is hidden.”
In a response to the OEB report on Monday, the IESO said its own initial analysis found that the error likely pushed wholesale electricity payments up by $225 million. That calculation assumed that the higher prices would have changed consumer behaviour, while upcoming electricity auctions were cited as a way to lower costs, it said.
In response to questions, a spokesperson said residential and small commercial consumers would have saved $11 million in electricity costs over the 11-month period, even as a typical bill increase loomed province-wide, while larger consumers would have paid an extra $14 million.
That is because residential and small commercial customers pay some costs via time-of-use rates, including a temporary recovery rate framework, the IESO said, while larger customers pay them in a way that reflects their share of overall electricity use during the five highest demand hours of the year.
The IESO said it could not compensate those that had paid too much, given the complexity of the system, and that the modelling error did not have a significant impact on ratepayers.
While acknowledging the effects of the mistake would vary among its customers, the IESO said the net market impact was less than $10 million, amid ongoing legislation to lower electricity rates in Ontario.
It said it would improve testing of its processes prior to deployment and agreed to publicly disclose errors that significantly affect the wholesale market in the future.
Egypt-ENI Hydrogen MoU outlines joint feasibility studies for green and blue hydrogen using renewable energy, carbon capture, and CO2 storage, targeting domestic demand, exports, and net-zero goals within Egypt's energy transition.
Key Points
A pact to study green and blue hydrogen in Egypt, leveraging renewables, CO2 storage, and export/demand pathways.
✅ Feasibility study for green and blue hydrogen projects
✅ Uses renewables, SMR, carbon capture, and CO2 storage
✅ Targets local demand, exports, and net-zero alignment
The Egyptian Electricity Holding Company (EEHC) and the Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company (EGAS) signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Italian energy giant Eni to assess the technical and commercial feasibility of green and blue hydrogen production projects in Egypt, which many see as central to power companies' future strategies worldwide today.
Under the MoU, a study will be conducted to assess joint projects for the production of green hydrogen using electricity generated from renewable energy and supported by regional electricity interconnections where relevant, and blue hydrogen using the storage of CO2 in depleted natural gas fields, according to a statement by the Ministry of Petroleum on Thursday.
The study will also estimate the potential local market consumption of hydrogen and export opportunities, taking cues from Ontario's hydrogen economy proposal to align electricity rates for growth.
This agreement is part of Eni's objective to achieve zero net emissions by 2050 and Egypt's strategy towards diversifying the energy mix and developing hydrogen projects in collaboration with major international companies, taking note of Italy's green hydrogen initiatives in Sicily as a comparable effort.
It signed the deal with Egyptian Natural Gas Holding (EGAS) and Egyptian Electricity Holding Co. (EEHC).
The companies will carry out a joint study on producing renewable energy powered green hydrogen, informed by electrolyzer investments in similar projects, where applicable. They will also work on blue hydrogen. This involves reforming natural gas and capturing the resulting CO2, in this instance in depleted natural gas fields.
The study will also consider domestic hydrogen use and export options, including funding models like the Hydrogen Innovation Fund now in Ontario.
Eni said the MoU was in line with its plans to eliminate net emissions and emissions cancel emission intensity by 2050. The company noted the agreement was in line with Egypt’s plan for the energy transition, in which it pursues hydrogen plans with major international companies, alongside broader clean-tech collaboration such as Tesla cooperation discussions in Dubai, to accelerate progress.
