When the roar of the local generator fills the neighborhood, Muna Hussein's 3-year-old son breaks into dancing. He knows their home will soon have electricity so he can finally watch his cartoons.
Love them or hate them — usually both — but Baghdad residents are obsessed with the thousands of generators around the city that they rely on for electricity because the national power grid is so notoriously unreliable.
Love them because generators are the only way to ensure desperately needed air conditioners keep running in Iraq's sweltering summer, when temperatures can reach 120 degrees Fahrenheit. Hate them because of the deafening noise, the ugly maze of wires marring the city's face and, above all, the cost — an extra outlay of $50 a month or more for already cash-strapped Iraqis.
The ubiquitous cables snaking across streets and up buildings to link homes with neighborhood generators "are the veins of life," said Hussein, a 37-year-old schoolteacher and a mother of two boys.
"I would have left Iraq a long time ago if it was not for the generators because besides the unbearable heat, without power there is no water," she said, because people usually use electric pumps to get the water to the taps. "The first thing we do when we get our salaries is put aside the money for generator fees."
The summer heat has brought an electricity crisis for Iraq's government, faced with public anger over increasing costs and sporadic power. Two people were killed last weekend in the southern port city of Basra when protests over power shortages turned violent and security forces fired into the crowd. Similar demonstrations have been held nearly every day since, forcing the resignation of Electricity Minister Karim Waheed.
His acting replacement, Hussain al-Shahristani, pleaded with Iraqis to cut down on air conditioner use and warned government employees not to use their positions to ensure a constant supply from the national grid. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has urged Iraqis to be patient, saying it likely will take more than two years for the electricity grid to be fixed.
Billions of dollars have been spent rebuilding Iraq's electricity network, which was damaged by U.S. attacks in the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 invasion and subsequent looting and insurgent targeting. But still, most neighborhoods in the capital get only five to seven hours of power a day from the grid. In places outside of Baghdad, it could be even less. At the same time, demand skyrocketed after the fall of Saddam Hussein when Iraqis could finally buy appliances that weren't previously available.
Moreover, the amount each family can draw from the grid when it is working is rationed to 10 amperes — not enough to run most air conditioners. So stealing from the grid is rampant as families rewire to get around the meters that enforce the ration. The mooching is so widespread and puts such a burden on the system that the Electricity Ministry earlier this year threatened the death penalty for anyone caught doing it.
Also, the price for power from the grid doubled as of June 1, and many are worried about what the next bills will bring.
PG&E 2024 Rate Hikes signal sharp increases to fund wildfire safety, infrastructure upgrades, and CPUC-backed reliability, with rates expected to stabilize in 2025, affecting rural residents, businesses, and high-risk zones across California.
Key Points
PG&E’s 2024 hikes fund wildfire safety and grid upgrades, with pricing expected to stabilize in 2025.
✅ Driven by wildfire safety, infrastructure, and reinsurance costs
✅ Largest impacts in rural, high-risk zones; business rates vary
✅ CPUC oversight aims to ensure necessary, justified investments
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is expected to implement a series of rate hikes that, amid analyses of why California electricity prices are soaring across the state, will significantly impact California residents. These increases, while substantial, are anticipated to be followed by a period of stabilization in 2025, offering a sense of relief to customers facing rising costs.
PG&E, one of the largest utility providers in the state, announced that its 2024 rate hikes are part of efforts to address increasing operational costs, including those related to wildfire safety, infrastructure upgrades, and regulatory requirements. As California continues to face climate-related challenges like wildfires, utilities like PG&E are being forced to adjust their financial models to manage the evolving risks. Wildfire-related liabilities, which have plagued PG&E in recent years, play a significant role in these rate adjustments. In response to previous fire-related lawsuits, including a bankruptcy plan supported by wildfire victims that reshaped liabilities, and the increased cost of reinsurance, PG&E has made it clear that customers will bear part of the financial burden.
These rate hikes will have a multi-faceted impact. Residential users, particularly those in rural or high-risk wildfire zones, will see some of the largest increases. Business customers will also be affected, although the adjustments may vary depending on the size and energy consumption patterns of each business. PG&E has indicated that the increases are necessary to secure the utility’s financial stability while continuing to deliver reliable service to its customers.
Despite the steep increases in 2024, PG&E's executives have assured that the company's pricing structure will stabilize in 2025. The utility has taken steps to balance the financial needs of the business with the reality of consumer affordability. While some rate hikes are inevitable given California's regulatory landscape and climate concerns, PG&E's leadership believes the worst of the increases will be seen next year.
PG&E’s anticipated stabilization comes after a year of scrutiny from California regulators. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has been working closely with PG&E to scrutinize its rate request and ensure that hikes are justifiable and used for necessary investments in infrastructure and safety improvements. The CPUC’s oversight is especially crucial given the company’s history of safety violations and the public outrage over past wildfire incidents, including reports that its power lines may have sparked fires in California, which have been linked to PG&E’s equipment.
The hikes, though significant, reflect the broader pressures facing utilities in California, where extreme weather patterns are becoming more frequent and intense due to climate change. Wildfires, which have grown in severity and frequency in recent years, have forced PG&E to invest heavily in fire prevention and mitigation strategies, including compliance with a judge-ordered use of dividends for wildfire mitigation across its service area. This includes upgrading equipment, inspecting power lines, and implementing more rigorous protocols to prevent accidents that could spark devastating fires. These investments come at a steep cost, which PG&E is passing along to consumers through higher rates.
For homeowners and businesses, the potential for future rate stabilization offers a glimmer of hope. However, the 2024 increases are still expected to hit consumers hard, especially those already struggling with high living costs. The steep hikes have prompted public outcry, with calls for action as bills soar amplifying advocacy group arguments that utilities should absorb more of the costs related to climate change and fire prevention instead of relying on ratepayers.
Looking ahead to 2025, the expectation is that PG&E’s rates will stabilize, but the question remains whether they will return to pre-2024 levels or continue to rise at a slower rate. Experts note that California’s energy market remains volatile, and while the rates may stabilize in the short term, long-term cost management will depend on ongoing investments in renewable energy sources and continued efforts to make the grid more resilient to climate-related risks.
As PG&E navigates this challenging period, the company’s commitment to transparency and working with regulators will be crucial in rebuilding trust with its customers. While the immediate future may be financially painful for many, the hope is that the utility's focus on safety and infrastructure will lead to greater long-term stability and fewer dramatic rate increases in the years to come.
Ultimately, California residents will need to brace for another tough year in terms of utility costs but can find reassurance that PG&E’s rate increases will eventually stabilize. For those seeking relief, there are ongoing discussions about increasing energy efficiency, exploring renewable energy alternatives, and expanding assistance programs for lower-income households to help mitigate the financial strain of these price hikes.
Hydro-Québec Bill 34 Refund issues $535M customer credits tied to electricity rates, consumption-based rebates, and variance accounts, averaging $60 per account and 2.49% of 2018-2019 usage, via bill credits or mailed cheques.
Key Points
A $535M credit refunding 2.49% of 2018-2019 usage to Hydro-Québec customers via bill credits or cheques.
✅ Applies to 2018-2019 consumption; average refund about $60.
✅ Current customers get bill credits; former customers receive cheques.
✅ Refund equals 2.49% of usage from variance accounts under prior rates.
Following the adoption of Bill 34 in December 2019, a total amount of $535 million will be refunded to customers who were Hydro-Québec account holders in 2018 or 2019. This amount was accumulated in variance accounts required under the previous rate system between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019.
If you are still a Hydro-Québec customer, a credit will be applied to your bill in the coming weeks, and improving billing layout clarity is a focus in some provinces as well. The amount will be indicated on your bill.
An average refund amount of $60. The refund amount is calculated based on the quantity of electricity that each customer consumed in 2018 and 2019. The refund will correspond to 2,49% of each customer's consumption between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019, for an average of approximately $60, while Ontario hydro rates are set to increase on Nov. 1.
The following chart provides an overview of the refund amount based on the type of home. Naturally, the number of occupants, electricity use habits and features of the home, such as insulation and energy efficiency, may have a significant impact on the amount of the refund, and in other provinces, oversight debates continue following a BC Hydro fund surplus revelation.
What if you were an account holder in 2018 or 2019 but you are no longer a Hydro-Québec customer? People who were account holders in 2018 or 2019, but who are no longer Hydro-Québec customers will receive their credit by cheque, a lump sum credit approach seen elsewhere.
To receive their cheque, these people must get in touch to update their address in one of the following ways:
If they have a Hydro-Québec Customer Space and remember their access code, they can update their profile.
Anyone without a Customer Space or who doesn't remember their access code can fill out the Request for a credit form at the following address: www.hydroquebec.com/credit in which they can indicate the address where they wish to receive their cheque, where applicable.
Those who cannot send us their address online can call 514 385-7252 or 1 888 385-7252 to give it to a customer services representative, as utilities like Hydro One have moved to reconnect customers in some cases. Note that the process will take longer on the phone, especially if the call volume is high.
UPDATE: Hydro-Québec will be returning an additional $35 million to customers under the adoption of Bill 34, amid overcharging allegations reported elsewhere.
Energy Minister Jonatan Julien announced on Tuesday that the public utility will be refunding a total of $535 million to customers between January and April.
The legislation, which was passed in December, allows the Quebec government to take control of the rates charged for electricity in the province, including decisions on whether to seek a rate hike next year under the new framework.
FERC Capacity Markets face scrutiny as GAO flags inconsistent data on resource adequacy and costs, urging performance goals, risk assessment, and better metrics across PJM, ISO-NE, NYISO, and MISO amid cost-recovery proposals.
Key Points
FERC capacity markets aim for resource adequacy, but GAO finds weak data and urges goals and performance reviews.
✅ GAO cites inconsistent data on resource adequacy and costs
✅ Calls for performance goals, metrics, and risk assessment
✅ Applies to PJM, ISO-NE, NYISO; MISO market is voluntary
Capacity markets may or may not be functioning properly, but FERC can't adequately make that determination, according to the GAO report.
"Available information on the level of resource adequacy ... and related costs in regions with and without capacity markets is not comprehensive or consistent," the report found. "Moreover, consistent data on historical trends in resource adequacy and related costs are not available for regions without capacity markets."
The review concluded that FERC collects some useful information in regions with and without capacity markets, but GAO said it "identified problems with data quality, such as inconsistent data."
GAO included three recommendations, including calling for FERC to take steps to improve the quality of data collected, and regularly assess the overall performance of capacity markets by developing goals for those assessments.
"FERC should develop and document an approach to regularly identify, assess, and respond to risks that capacity markets face," the report also recommended. The commission "has not established performance goals for capacity markets, measured progress against those goals, or used performance information to make changes to capacity markets as needed."
The recommendation comes as the agency is grappling with a controversial proposal to assure cost-recovery for struggling coal and nuclear plants in the power markets. So far, the proposal would only apply to power markets with capacity markets, including PJM Interconnection, the New England ISO, the New York ISO and possibly MISO. However MISO only has a voluntary capacity market, making it unclear how the proposed rule would be applied there.
UK Coal Phase-Out marks record-low coal generation as the UK grid shifts to renewable power, wind farms, and a net zero trajectory, slashing carbon emissions and supporting cleaner EV charging across the electricity system.
Key Points
UK Coal Phase-Out ends coal-fired electricity nationwide, powered by renewables and net zero policy to cut grid carbon.
✅ Coal's Q2 share fell to 0.7%, a record low
✅ Renewables up 12% with Beatrice wind farm
✅ EV charging grows cleaner as grid decarbonizes
The share of coal in the UK’s electricity system has fallen to record lows in recent months, alongside a coal-free power record, according to government data.
The figures show electricity generated by the UK’s most polluting power plants made up an average of 0.7% of the total in the second quarter of this year, a shift underway since wind first outpaced coal in 2016 across the UK. The amount of coal used to power the electricity grid fell by almost two-thirds compared with the same months last year.
A government spokesperson said coal-generated energy “will soon be a distant memory” as the UK moves towards becoming a net zero emissions economy, despite signs that low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 in some analyses.
“This new record low is a result of our world-leading low-carbon energy industry, which provided more than half of our energy last year and continues to go from strength to strength as we aim to end our contribution to climate change entirely by 2050,” the spokesperson said.
This year three major energy companies have announced plans to close coal-fired power plants in the UK, which would leave only four remaining after the coming winter, ahead of the last coal power station going offline nationwide.
RWE said this month it would close the Aberthaw B power station in south Wales, its last UK coal plant, after the winter. SSE will close the Fiddler’s Ferry plant near Warrington, Cheshire, in March 2020, and EDF Energy will shutter the Cottam coal plant in September.
So far this year the UK has gone more than 3,000 hours without using coal for power, including a full week without coal earlier in the year – nearly five times more than the whole of 2017.
Meanwhile, the government’s data shows that renewable energy climbed by 12% from the second quarter of last year, boosted by the startup of the Beatrice windfarm in the Moray Firth in Scotland, and the UK leading the G20 in wind power share in recent assessments.
The cleaner power system could accelerate carbon savings from the UK’s roads, too, as more drivers opt for electric vehicles. A study by Imperial College London for the energy company Drax found that the UK’s increasingly low-carbon energy system meant electric cars were a greener option even when taking into account the carbon emissions produced by making car batteries.
Dr Iain Staffell, of Imperial College London, said: “An electric vehicle in the UK simply cannot be more polluting than its petrol or diesel equivalent – even when taking into account the upfront carbon cost of manufacturing their batteries. Any EV bought today could be emitting just a tenth of what a petrol car would in as little as five years’ time, as the electricity it uses to charge comes from an increasingly low-carbon mix.”
ITER Nuclear Fusion advances tokamak magnetic confinement, heating deuterium-tritium plasma with superconducting magnets, targeting net energy gain, tritium breeding, and steam-turbine power, while complementing laser inertial confinement milestones for grid-scale electricity and 2025 startup goals.
Key Points
ITER Nuclear Fusion is a tokamak project confining D-T plasma with magnets to achieve net energy gain and clean power.
✅ Tokamak magnetic confinement with high-temp superconducting coils
✅ Deuterium-tritium fuel cycle with on-site tritium breeding
✅ Targets net energy gain and grid-scale, low-carbon electricity
It sounds like the stuff of dreams: a virtually limitless source of energy that doesn’t produce greenhouse gases or radioactive waste. That’s the promise of nuclear fusion, often described as the holy grail of clean energy by proponents, which for decades has been nothing more than a fantasy due to insurmountable technical challenges. But things are heating up in what has turned into a race to create what amounts to an artificial sun here on Earth, one that can provide power for our kettles, cars and light bulbs.
Today’s nuclear power plants create electricity through nuclear fission, in which atoms are split, with next-gen nuclear power exploring smaller, cheaper, safer designs that remain distinct from fusion. Nuclear fusion however, involves combining atomic nuclei to release energy. It’s the same reaction that’s taking place at the Sun’s core. But overcoming the natural repulsion between atomic nuclei and maintaining the right conditions for fusion to occur isn’t straightforward. And doing so in a way that produces more energy than the reaction consumes has been beyond the grasp of the finest minds in physics for decades.
But perhaps not for much longer. Some major technical challenges have been overcome in the past few years and governments around the world have been pouring money into fusion power research as part of a broader green industrial revolution under way in several regions. There are also over 20 private ventures in the UK, US, Europe, China and Australia vying to be the first to make fusion energy production a reality.
“People are saying, ‘If it really is the ultimate solution, let’s find out whether it works or not,’” says Dr Tim Luce, head of science and operation at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), being built in southeast France. ITER is the biggest throw of the fusion dice yet.
Its $22bn (£15.9bn) build cost is being met by the governments of two-thirds of the world’s population, including the EU, the US, China and Russia, at a time when Europe is losing nuclear power and needs energy, and when it’s fired up in 2025 it’ll be the world’s largest fusion reactor. If it works, ITER will transform fusion power from being the stuff of dreams into a viable energy source.
Constructing a nuclear fusion reactor ITER will be a tokamak reactor – thought to be the best hope for fusion power. Inside a tokamak, a gas, often a hydrogen isotope called deuterium, is subjected to intense heat and pressure, forcing electrons out of the atoms. This creates a plasma – a superheated, ionised gas – that has to be contained by intense magnetic fields.
The containment is vital, as no material on Earth could withstand the intense heat (100,000,000°C and above) that the plasma has to reach so that fusion can begin. It’s close to 10 times the heat at the Sun’s core, and temperatures like that are needed in a tokamak because the gravitational pressure within the Sun can’t be recreated.
When atomic nuclei do start to fuse, vast amounts of energy are released. While the experimental reactors currently in operation release that energy as heat, in a fusion reactor power plant, the heat would be used to produce steam that would drive turbines to generate electricity, even as some envision nuclear beyond electricity for industrial heat and fuels.
Tokamaks aren’t the only fusion reactors being tried. Another type of reactor uses lasers to heat and compress a hydrogen fuel to initiate fusion. In August 2021, one such device at the National Ignition Facility, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, generated 1.35 megajoules of energy. This record-breaking figure brings fusion power a step closer to net energy gain, but most hopes are still pinned on tokamak reactors rather than lasers.
In June 2021, China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor maintained a plasma for 101 seconds at 120,000,000°C. Before that, the record was 20 seconds. Ultimately, a fusion reactor would need to sustain the plasma indefinitely – or at least for eight-hour ‘pulses’ during periods of peak electricity demand.
A real game-changer for tokamaks has been the magnets used to produce the magnetic field. “We know how to make magnets that generate a very high magnetic field from copper or other kinds of metal, but you would pay a fortune for the electricity. It wouldn’t be a net energy gain from the plant,” says Luce.
One route for nuclear fusion is to use atoms of deuterium and tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen. They fuse under incredible heat and pressure, and the resulting products release energy as heat
The solution is to use high-temperature, superconducting magnets made from superconducting wire, or ‘tape’, that has no electrical resistance. These magnets can create intense magnetic fields and don’t lose energy as heat.
“High temperature superconductivity has been known about for 35 years. But the manufacturing capability to make tape in the lengths that would be required to make a reasonable fusion coil has just recently been developed,” says Luce. One of ITER’s magnets, the central solenoid, will produce a field of 13 tesla – 280,000 times Earth’s magnetic field.
The inner walls of ITER’s vacuum vessel, where the fusion will occur, will be lined with beryllium, a metal that won’t contaminate the plasma much if they touch. At the bottom is the divertor that will keep the temperature inside the reactor under control.
“The heat load on the divertor can be as large as in a rocket nozzle,” says Luce. “Rocket nozzles work because you can get into orbit within minutes and in space it’s really cold.” In a fusion reactor, a divertor would need to withstand this heat indefinitely and at ITER they’ll be testing one made out of tungsten.
Meanwhile, in the US, the National Spherical Torus Experiment – Upgrade (NSTX-U) fusion reactor will be fired up in the autumn of 2022, while efforts in advanced fission such as a mini-reactor design are also progressing. One of its priorities will be to see whether lining the reactor with lithium helps to keep the plasma stable.
Choosing a fuel Instead of just using deuterium as the fusion fuel, ITER will use deuterium mixed with tritium, another hydrogen isotope. The deuterium-tritium blend offers the best chance of getting significantly more power out than is put in. Proponents of fusion power say one reason the technology is safe is that the fuel needs to be constantly fed into the reactor to keep fusion happening, making a runaway reaction impossible.
Deuterium can be extracted from seawater, so there’s a virtually limitless supply of it. But only 20kg of tritium are thought to exist worldwide, so fusion power plants will have to produce it (ITER will develop technology to ‘breed’ tritium). While some radioactive waste will be produced in a fusion plant, it’ll have a lifetime of around 100 years, rather than the thousands of years from fission.
At the time of writing in September, researchers at the Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor in Oxfordshire were due to start their deuterium-tritium fusion reactions. “JET will help ITER prepare a choice of machine parameters to optimise the fusion power,” says Dr Joelle Mailloux, one of the scientific programme leaders at JET. These parameters will include finding the best combination of deuterium and tritium, and establishing how the current is increased in the magnets before fusion starts.
The groundwork laid down at JET should accelerate ITER’s efforts to accomplish net energy gain. ITER will produce ‘first plasma’ in December 2025 and be cranked up to full power over the following decade. Its plasma temperature will reach 150,000,000°C and its target is to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power for every 50 megawatts of input heating power.
“If ITER is successful, it’ll eliminate most, if not all, doubts about the science and liberate money for technology development,” says Luce. That technology development will be demonstration fusion power plants that actually produce electricity, where advanced reactors can build on decades of expertise. “ITER is opening the door and saying, yeah, this works – the science is there.”
Canada Net-Zero Electricity Buildout will double or triple power capacity, scaling clean energy, renewables, nuclear, hydro, and grid transmission, with faster permitting, Indigenous consultation, and trillions in investment to meet 2035 non-emitting regulations.
Key Points
A national plan to rapidly expand clean, non-emitting power and grid capacity to enable a net-zero economy by 2050.
✅ Double to triple generation; all sources non-emitting by 2035
✅ Accelerate permitting, transmission, and Indigenous partnerships
✅ Trillions in investment; cross-jurisdictional coordination
Canada must build more electricity generation in the next 25 years than it has over the last century in order to support a net-zero emissions economy by 2050, says a new report from the Public Policy Forum.
Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and shifting to emissions-free electricity, as provinces such as Ontario pursue new wind and solar to ease a supply crunch, to propel our cars, heat our homes and run our factories will require doubling — possibly tripling — the amount of power we make now, the federal government estimates.
"Imagine every dam, turbine, nuclear plant and solar panel across Canada and then picture a couple more next to them," said the report, which will be published Wednesday.
It's going to cost a lot, and in Ontario, greening the grid could cost $400 billion according to one report. Most estimates are in the trillions.
It's also going to require the kind of cross-jurisdictional co-operation, with lessons from Europe's power crisis underscoring the stakes, Indigenous consultation and swift decision-making and construction that Canada just isn't very good at, the report said.
"We have a date with destiny," said Edward Greenspon, president of the Public Policy Forum. "We need to build, build, build. We're way behind where we need to be and we don't have a lot of a lot of time remaining."
Later this summer, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault will publish new regulations to require that all power be generated from non-emitting sources by 2035 clean electricity goals, as proposed.
Greenspon said that means there are two major challenges ahead: massively expanding how much power we make and making all of it clean, even though some natural gas generation will be permitted under federal rules.
On average, it takes more than four years just to get a new electricity generating project approved by Ottawa, and more than three years for new transmission lines.
That's before a single shovel touches any dirt.
Building these facilities is another thing, and provinces such as Ontario face looming electricity shortfalls as projects drag on. The Site C dam in British Columbia won't come on line until 2025 and has been under construction since 2015. A new transmission line from northern Manitoba to the south took more than 11 years from the first proposal to operation.
"We need to move very quickly, and probably with a different approach ... no hurdles, no timeouts," Greenspon said.
There are significant unanswered questions about the new power mix, and the pace at which Canada moves away from fossil fuel power is one of the biggest political issues facing the country, with debates over whether scrapping coal-fired electricity is cost-effective still unresolved.
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
