Electricity would be less expensive for area ratepayers if San Diego Gas & Electric Co. chose to rely on new natural-gas-fired power plants in metro San Diego rather than build a power line through the backcountry, according to a analysis by a utility competitor.
In filing a report on behalf of Dynegy, Inc., the company that wants to replace the aging South Bay power plant in Chula Vista with a modern one nearby, an official said generating plants can be built faster than transmission lines, and without the energy loss that occurs when electricity is transported long distances over wires.
"The most effective way to serve electric demand is to locate the supply close to the load," said Ali Amirali, managing director for regulatory policy and transmission for Dynegy in Sacramento. San Diego Gas & Electric disputed the notion that local plants would be more economical than long-distance wires.
Amirali's comments came in a report filed in connection with San Diego Gas & Electric's proposed $1.3 billion Sunrise Powerlink transmission line, which would run 150 miles from El Centro to Carmel Valley. Featuring thick wires strung from steel towers p to 150 feet tall, the project would wind through Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, Santa Ysabel, Ramona and Rancho Penasquitos.
The reports, called testimony, help set the stage for California Public Utilities Commission hearings on the need for the line starting July 9 in San Diego. The commission is scheduled to decide whether to issue a permit for the line in January.
Scott Crider, public affairs manager for the Sunrise Powerlink, said, "It's no surprise that energy companies that want to build fossil fuel power plants in San Diego County are going to oppose a transmission line that is going to deliver renewable power from Imperial Valley."
Besides shoring up the region's electricity supplies, the Sunrise power line is being sold on the premise that it would plug San Diego County into the solar and geothermal power in Imperial Valley, helping the region comply with a state mandate to secur 20 percent of its supplies from non-fossil-fuel sources.
"What they're looking to do is to commit our customers to a local-generation-only strategy," Crider said.
"And that will commit our customers to a fossil-fuel future and limit our ability to increase the use of green energy." As for the specific charge that the line would be more costly, Crider said "the experts simply don't agree." He cited a study by the California Independent System Operator last summer that concluded the line would be the most efficient way to meet future electricity needs.
The line is sharply opposed by environmentalists and communities along the preferred route. In other testimony, Elizabeth Goldstein, president of the California State Parks Foundation, stated that building the power line through the 600,000-acre Anza-Borrego Desert State Park would establish a "dangerous" trend that could undermine one of the nation's most extensive state park systems.
She urged the state to reject the project, or order a route around the park. "The new transmission lines will be visible from great distances," she said. Goldstein said the proposed 140 towers in the park would require construction of 140 new spur roads that, besides providing utility workers access to the line for repairs, would subject pristine areas and archaeological sites to vandalism.
Crider said the foundation's objections "are really outside the scope of where we are at right now" and will be addressed in an environmental study released later this summer. In testimony on behalf of the Ramona community group Mussey Grade Alliance, consultant Joseph Mitchell stated that based on historical fire trends in California the Sunrise Powerlink could be expected to ignite a wildfire every 20 years.
Crider said the utility will analyze that estimate. Generally speaking, he said, "high-voltage transmission lines like Sunrise represent a very low fire risk to the region." Crider said the steel towers don't catch on fire and are built to withstand strong wind. On June 15, the utility is scheduled to submit testimony rebutting reports filed recently.
Alberta Electricity Demand Record surges during a deep freeze, as AESO reports peak load in megawatts and ENMAX notes increased usage in Calgary and Edmonton, with thermostats up amid a cold snap straining power grid.
Key Points
It is the highest electricity peak load recorded by AESO, reflecting maximum grid usage during cold snaps.
✅ AESO reported 11,729 MW peak during the deep freeze
✅ ENMAX saw a 13 percent demand jump week over week
✅ Cold snap drove thermostats up in Calgary and Edmonton
Albertans are cranking up their thermostats and blasting heat into their homes at overwhelmingly high rates as the deep freeze continues across the region.
It’s so cold that the province set a new all-time record Tuesday evening for electricity usage.
According to the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), as electricity prices spike in Alberta during extreme demand, 11,729 MW of power was used around 7 p.m. Tuesday, passing the previous record set in January of last year by 31 MW.
Temperatures reached a low of -29 C in Calgary, where rising electricity bills have strained budgets, on Tuesday while Edmonton saw a low of -30 C, according to Environment Canada. Wind chill made it feel closer to -40.
“That increase — 31 Megawatts — is sizeable and about the equivalent of a moderately sized generation facility,” said AESO communications director, Mike Deising.
“We do see higher demand in winter because it’s cold and it’s dark and that’s really exactly what we’re seeing right now as demand goes up, people turn on their lights and turn up their furnaces,” and with the UCP scrapping the price cap earlier that’s really exactly what we’re seeing right now as demand goes up, people turn on their lights and turn up their furnaces.”
Deising adds Alberta’s electricity usage over the last year has actually been much lower than average, though experts urge Albertans to lock in rates amid expected volatility, despite more people staying home during the pandemic.
That trend was continuing into 2021, but as Alberta's rising electricity prices draw attention, it’s expected that more records could be broken.
“If the cold snap continues we may likely set another record (Wednesday) or (Thursday), depending on what happens with the temperatures,” he said.
Meanwhile, ENMAX has reported an average real-time system demand of 1,400 MW for the city of Calgary.
That amount is still a far cry from the current season record of 1,619 MW (Aug. 18, 2020), the all-time winter record of 1,653MW (Dec. 2, 2013), and the all-time summer record of 1,692 MW (Aug. 10, 2018).
ENMAX says electricity demand has increased quite significantly over the past week — by about 13 per cent — since the cold snap set in.
As a result, the energy company is once again rolling out its ‘Winter Wise’ campaign in an effort to encourage Calgarians to manage both electricity and natural gas use in the winter, even as a consumer price cap on power bills is enabled by new legislation.
UK Electricity-Gas Price Decoupling aims to reform wholesale electricity pricing under the Energy Security Bill, shielding households from gas price spikes, supporting renewables, and easing the cost-of-living crisis through market redesign and transparent tariffs.
Key Points
Policy to decouple power prices from gas via the Energy Security Bill, stabilizing bills and reflecting renewables
✅ Breaks gas-to-power pricing link to cut electricity costs
✅ Reduces volatility; shields households from global gas shocks
✅ Highlights benefits of renewables and market transparency
Britons could be handed relief on rocketing household bills under Government plans to sever the link between the prices of gas and electricity, including proposals to restrict energy prices in the market, it has emerged.
Ministers are set to bring forward new laws under the Energy Security Bill to overhaul the UK's energy market in the face of the current cost-of-living crisis.
They have promised to provide greater protection for Britons against global fluctuations in energy prices, through a price cap on bills among other measures.
The current worldwide crisis has been exacerbated by the Ukraine war, which has sent gas prices spiralling higher.
Under the current make-up of Britain's energy market, soaring natural gas prices have had a knock-on effect on electricity costs.
But it has now been reported the new legislation will seek to prevent future shocks in the global gas market having a similar impact on electricity prices.
Yet the overhaul might not come in time to ease high winter energy costs for households ahead of this winter.
According to The Times, Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng will outline proposals for reforms in the coming weeks.
These will then form part of the Energy Security Bill to be introduced in the autumn, with officials anticipating a decrease in energy bills by April.
The newspaper said the plans will end the current system under which the wholesale cost of gas effectively determines the price of electricity for households.
Although more than a quarter of Britain's electricity comes from renewable sources, under current market rules it is the most expensive megawatt needed to meet demand that determines the price for all electricity generation.
This means that soaring gas prices have driven up all electricity costs in recent months, even though only around 40% of UK electricity comes from gas power stations.
Energy experts have compared the current market to train passengers having to pay the peak-period price for every journey they make.
One Government source told The Times: 'In the past it didn’t really matter because the price of gas was reasonably stable.
'Now it seems completely crazy that the price of electricity is based on the price of gas when a large amount of our generation is from renewables.'
It was also claimed ministers hope the reforms will make the market more transparent and emphasise to consumers the benefits of decarbonisation, amid an ongoing industry debate over free electricity for consumers.
A Government spokesperson said: 'The high global gas prices and linked high electricity prices that we are currently facing have given added urgency to the need to consider electricity market reform.
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.
Electrical Grounding and Bonding NEC 250 Training equips electricians with Article 250 expertise, OSHA compliance knowledge, lightning protection strategies, and low-impedance fault current path design for safer industrial, commercial, and institutional power systems.
Key Points
Live NEC 250 course on grounding and bonding, covering safety, testing, and OSHA-compliant design.
✅ Interprets NEC Article 250 grounding and bonding rules
✅ Designs low-impedance fault current paths for safety
✅ Aligns with OSHA, lightning protection, and testing best practices
The Electricity Forum is organizing a series of live online Electrical Grounding and Bonding - NEC 250 training courses this Fall:
September 8-9 , 2020 - 10:00 am - 4:30 pm ET
October 29-30 , 2020 - 10:00 am - 4:30 pm ET
November 23-24 , 2020 - 10:00 am - 4:30 pm ET
This interactive 12-hour live online instructor-led Grounding and Bonding and the NEC Training course takes an in-depth look at Article 250 of the National Electrical Code (NEC) and is designed to give students the correct information they need to design, install and maintain effective electrical grounding and bonding systems in industrial, commercial and institutional power systems, with substation maintenance training also relevant in many facilities.
One of the most important AND least understood sections of the NEC is the section on Electrical Grounding, where resources like grounding guidelines can help practitioners navigate key concepts.
No other section of the National Electrical Code can match Article 250 (Grounding and Bonding) for confusion that leads to misapplication, violation, and misinterpretation. It's generally agreed that the terminology used in Section 250 has been a source for much confusion for industrial, commercial and institutional electricians. Thankfully, this has improved during the last few revisions to Article 250.
Article 250 covers the grounding requirements for providing a path to the earth to reduce overvoltage from lightning, with lightning protection training providing useful context, and the bonding requirements for a low-impedance fault current path back to the source of the electrical supply to facilitate the operation of overcurrent devices in the event of a ground fault.
Our Electrical Grounding Training course will address all the latest changes to the Electrical Grounding rules included in the NEC, and relate them to VFD drive training considerations for modern systems.
Our course will cover grounding fundamentals, identify which grounding system tests can prevent safety and operational issues at your facilities, and introduce related motor testing training topics, and details regarding which tests can be conducted while the plant is in operation versus which tests require a shutdown will be discussed.
Proper electrical grounding and bonding of equipment helps ensure that the electrical equipment and systems safely remove the possibility of electric shock, by limiting the voltage imposed on electrical equipment and systems from lightning, line surges, unintentional contact with higher-voltage lines, or ground-fault conditions. Proper grounding and bonding is important for personnel protection, with electrical safety tips offering practical guidance, as well as for compliance with OSHA 29 CFR 1910.304(g) Grounding.
It has been determined that more than 70 per cent of all electrical problems in industrial, commercial and institutional power systems, including large projects like the New England Clean Power Link, are due to poor grounding, and bonding errors. Without proper electrical grounding and bonding, sensitive electronic equipment is subjected to destruction of data, erratic equipment operation, and catastrophic damage. This electrical grounding and bonding training course will National Electrical Code.
Pickering Nuclear False Alert Investigation probes Ontario's emergency alert system after a provincewide cellphone, radio, and TV warning, assessing human error, Pelmorex safeguards, Emergency Management Ontario oversight, and communication delays.
Key Points
An Ontario probe into the erroneous Pickering nuclear alert, focusing on human error, system safeguards, and oversight.
✅ Human error during routine testing suspected
✅ Pelmorex safeguards and EMO protocols under review
✅ Two-hour all-clear delay prompts communication fixes
An investigation into a mistaken Pickering alert warning of an incident at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station will be completed fairly quickly, Ontario's solicitor general said.
Sylvia Jones tapped the chief of Emergency Management Ontario to investigate how the alert warning of an unspecified problem at the facility was sent in error to cellphones, radios and TVs across the province at about 7:30 a.m. Sunday.
"It's very important for me, for the people of Ontario, to know exactly what happened on Sunday morning," said Jones. "Having said that, I do not anticipate this is going to be a long, drawn-out investigation. I want to know what happened and equally important, I want some recommendations on insurances and changes we can make to the system to make sure it doesn't happen again."
Initial observations suggest human error was responsible for the alert that was sent out during routine tests of the emergency alert, Jones said.
"This has never happened in the history of the tests that they do every day, twice a day, but I do want to know exactly all of the issues related to it, whether it was one human error or whether it was a series of things."
Martin Belanger, the director of public alerting for Pelmorex, a company that operates the alert system, said there are a number of safeguards built in, including having two separate platforms for training and live alerts.
"The software has some steps and some features built in to minimize that risk and to make sure that users will be able to know whether or not they're sending an alert through the...training platform or whether they're accessing the live system in the case of a real emergency," he said.
Only authorized users have access to the system and the province manages that, Belanger said. Once in the live system, features make the user aware of which platform they are using, with various prompts and messages requiring the user's confirmation. There is a final step that also requires the user to confirm their intent of issuing an alert to cellphones, radio and TVs, Belanger said.
On Sunday, a follow-up alert was sent to cellphones nearly two hours after the original notification, and similar grid alerts in Alberta underscore timing and public expectations.
NDP energy critic Peter Tabuns is critical of that delay, noting that ongoing utility scam warnings can further erode public trust.
"That's a long time for people to be waiting to find out what's really going on," he said. "If people lose confidence in this system, the ability to use it when there is a real emergency will be impaired. That's dangerous."
Treasury Board President Peter Bethlenfalvy, who represents the riding of Pickering-Uxbridge, said getting that alert Sunday morning was "a shock to the system," and he too wants the investigation to address the reason for the all-clear delay.
"We all have a lot of questions," he said. "I think the public has every right to know exactly what went on and we feel exactly the same way."
People in the community know the facility is safe, Bethlenfalvy said.
"We have some of the safest nuclear assets in the world -- the safest -- at 60 per cent of Ontario's electricity," he said.
A poll released Monday found that 82 per cent of Canadians are concerned about spills from nuclear reactors contaminating drinking water and 77 per cent are concerned about neighbourhood safety and security risks for those living close to nuclear plants. Oraclepoll Research surveyed 2,094 people across the country on behalf of Friends of the Earth between Jan. 2 and 12, the day of the false alert. The have a margin of error of plus or minus 2.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.
The wording of Sunday's alert caused much initial confusion, and events like a power outage in London show how morning disruptions can amplify concern, warning residents within 10 kilometres of the plant of "an incident," though there was no "abnormal" release of radioactivity and residents didn't need to take protective steps, but emergency crews were responding.
In the event of a real emergency, the wording would be different, Jones said.
"There are a number of different alerts that are already prepared and are ready to go," she said. "We have the ability to localize it to the communities that are impacted, but because this was a test, it went provincewide."
Jones said she expects the results of the probe to be made public.
The Pickering nuclear plant has been operating since 1971, and had been scheduled to be decommissioned this year, but the former Liberal government -- and the current Progressive Conservative government -- committed to keeping it open until 2024. Decommissioning is now set to start in 2028.
It operates six CANDU reactors, generates 14 per cent of Ontario's electricity and is responsible for 4,500 jobs across the region, according to OPG, and OPG's credit rating remains stable.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Hydro One employees supported the Province of Ontario in the fight against COVID-19.
The Green party is calling on the province to use this opportunity to review its nuclear emergency response plan, including pandemic staffing contingencies, last updated in 2017 and subject to review every five years.
Toronto Mayor John Tory praised Ontario for swiftly launching an investigation, but said communication between city and provincial officials wasn't what it should have been under the circumstances.
"It was a poor showing and I think everybody involved knows that," he said. "We've got to make sure it's not repeated."
California Nuclear Renewable Bill AB 2898 seeks to add nuclear to the Renewables Portfolio Standard, impacting Diablo Canyon, PG&E compliance, carbon-free targets, and potential license extensions while addressing climate goals and natural gas reliance.
Key Points
A bill to add nuclear to California's RPS, influencing Diablo Canyon, PG&E planning, and carbon-free climate targets.
✅ Reclassifies nuclear as renewable in California's RPS.
✅ Could influence Diablo Canyon license extension and ownership.
✅ Targets carbon-free goals while limiting natural gas reliance.
Although he admits it's a long shot, a member of the California Legislature from the district that includes the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant has introduced a bill that would add nuclear power to the state's list of renewable energy sources.
"I think that nuclear power is an important component of generating large-scale electricity that's good for the environment," said Jordan Cunningham, R-San Luis Obispo. "Without nuclear as part of the renewable portfolio, we're going to have tremendous difficulty meeting the state's climate goals without a significant cost increase on electricity ratepayers."
Established in 2002, California's Renewables Portfolio Standard spells out the power sources eligible to count toward the state's goals to wean itself of fossil fuels. The list includes solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, small hydroelectric facilities and even tidal currents. The standard has been updated, currently calling for 60 percent of California's electricity to come from renewables by 2030 and 100 percent from carbon-free sources by 2045, even as some analyses argue net-zero emissions may be difficult to achieve without nuclear power.
Nuclear power is not part of the portfolio standard and Diablo Canyon — the only remaining nuclear plant in California — is scheduled to stop producing electricity by 2025, even as some Southern California plant closures face postponement to maintain grid reliability.
Pacific Gas & Electric, the operators of Diablo Canyon, announced in 2016 an agreement with a collection of environmental and labor groups to shut down the plant, often framed as part of a just transition for workers and communities. PG&E said Diablo will become uneconomical to run due to changes in California's power grid — such as growth of renewable energy sources, increased energy efficiency measures and the migration of customers from traditional utilities to community choice energy programs.
But Cunningham thinks the passage of Assembly Bill 2898, which he introduced last week, — as innovators like Bill Gates' mini-reactor venture tout new designs — could give the plant literally a new lease on life.
"If PG&E were able to count the power produced (at Diablo) toward its renewable goals, it might — I'm not saying it will or would, but it might — cause them to reconsider applying to extend the operating license at Diablo," Cunningham said.
Passing the bill, supporters say, could also make Diablo Canyon attractive to an outside investor to purchase and then apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license extension.
But nuclear power has long generated opposition in California and AB 2898 will face long odds in Sacramento, and similar efforts elsewhere have drawn opposition from power producers as well. The Legislature is dominated by Democrats, who have expressed more interest in further developing wind and solar energy projects than offering a lifeline to nuclear.
And if the bill managed to generate momentum, anti-nuclear groups will certainly be quick to mobilize, reflecting a national energy debate over Three Mile Island and whether to save struggling plants.
When told of Cunningham's bill, David Weisman, outreach coordinator for the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, said flatly, "Diablo Canyon has become a burdensome, costly nuclear white elephant."
Critics say nuclear power by definition cannot be considered renewable because it leaves behind waste in the form of spent nuclear fuel that then has to be stored, while supporters point to next-gen nuclear designs that aim to improve safety and costs. The federal government has not found a site to deposit the waste that has built up over decades from commercial nuclear power plants.
Even though Diablo Canyon is the only nuclear plant left in the Golden State, it accounts for 9 percent of California's power mix. Cunningham says if the plant closes, the state's reliance on natural gas — a fossil fuel — will increase, pointing to what happened when the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station closed.
In 2011, the final full year operations for San Onofre, nuclear accounted for 18.2 percent of in-state generation and natural gas made up 45.4 percent. The following year, nuclear dropped to 9.3 percent and gas shot up to 61.1 percent of in-state generation.
"If we're going to get serious about being a national leader as California has been on dealing with climate change, I think nuclear is part of the answer," Cunningham said.
But judging from the response to an email from the Union-Tribune, PG&E isn't exactly embracing Cunningham's bill.
"We remain focused on safely and reliably operating Diablo Canyon Power Plant until the end of its current operating licenses and planning for a successful decommissioning," said Suzanne Hosn, a PG&E senior manager at Diablo Canyon. "The Assemblyman's proposal does not change any of PG&E's plans for the plant."
Cunningham concedes AB 2898 is "a Hail Mary pass" but said "it's an important conversation that needs to be had."
The second-term assemblyman introduced a similar measure late last year that sought to have the Legislature bring the question before voters as an amendment to the state constitution. But the legislation, which would require a two-thirds majority vote in the Assembly and the Senate, is still waiting for a committee assignment.
AB 2898, on the other hand, requires a simple majority to move through the Legislature. Cunningham said he hopes the bill will receive a committee assignment by the end of next month.
