Iraqis opt for generators for power

Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) enables EV batteries to provide grid balancing, flexibility, and demand response, integrating renewables with bidirectional charging, reducing peaker plant reliance, and unlocking distributed energy storage from millions of connected electric vehicles.

Key Points

Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) lets EVs export power via bidirectional charging to balance grids and support renewables.

✅ Turns parked EVs into distributed energy storage assets

✅ Delivers balancing services and demand response to the grid

✅ Cuts peaker plant use and supports renewable integration

“There are already many Gigawatt-hours of batteries on wheels”, which could be used to provide balance and flexibility to electrical grids, if the “ultimate potential” of vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology could be harnessed.

That’s according to a panel of experts and stakeholders convened by our sister site Current±, which covers the business models and technologies inherent to the low carbon transition to decentralised and clean energy. Focusing mainly on the UK grid but opening up the conversation to other territories and the technologies themselves, representatives including distribution network operator (DNO) Northern Powergrid’s policy and markets director and Nissan Europe’s director of energy services debated the challenges, benefits and that aforementioned ultimate potential.

Decarbonisation of energy systems and of transport go hand-in-hand amid grid challenges from rising EV uptake, with vehicle fuel currently responsible for more emissions than electricity used for energy elsewhere, as Ian Cameron, head of innovation at DNO UK Power Networks says in the Q&A article.

“Furthermore, V2G technology will further help decarbonisation by replacing polluting power plants that back up the electrical grid,” Marc Trahand from EV software company Nuvve Corporation added, pointing to California grid stability initiatives as a leading example.

While the panel states that there will still be a place for standalone utility-scale energy storage systems, various speakers highlighted that there are over 20GWh of so-called ‘batteries on wheels’ in the US, capable of powering buildings as needed, and up to 10 million EVs forecast for Britain’s roads by 2030.

“…it therefore doesn’t make sense to keep building expensive standalone battery farms when you have all this capacity on wheels that just needs to be plugged into bidirectional chargers,” Trahand said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Rising Electricity Prices are driven by inflation, climate change, and the clean energy transition, affecting energy bills, grid resilience, and supply. Renewables, storage, and infrastructure upgrades shape costs, volatility, and long-term sustainability.

Key Points

Rising electricity prices stem from inflation, climate risk, and costs of integrating clean energy and storage into modern grids.

✅ Inflation raises fuel, materials, and labor costs for utilities

✅ Extreme weather damages infrastructure and strains peak demand

✅ Clean energy rollout needs storage, backup, and grid upgrades

In recent months, consumers have been grappling with a concerning trend: rising electricity prices across the country. This increase is not merely a fluctuation but a complex issue shaped by a confluence of factors including inflation, climate change, and the transition to clean energy. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for navigating the current energy landscape and preparing for its future.

Inflation and Its Impact on Energy Costs

Inflation, the economic phenomenon of rising prices across various sectors, has significantly impacted the cost of living, including electricity and natural gas prices for households. As the price of goods and services increases, so too does the cost of producing and delivering electricity. Energy production relies heavily on raw materials, such as metals and fuels, whose prices have surged in recent years. For instance, the costs associated with mining, transporting, and refining these materials have risen, thereby increasing the operational expenses for power plants.

Moreover, inflation affects labor costs, as wages often need to keep pace with the rising cost of living. As utility companies face higher expenses for both materials and labor, these costs are inevitably passed on to consumers in the form of higher electricity bills.

Climate Change and Energy Supply Disruptions

Climate change also plays a significant role in driving up electricity prices. Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, heatwaves, and floods, have become more frequent and severe due to climate change. These events disrupt energy production and distribution by damaging infrastructure, impeding transportation, and affecting the availability of resources.

For example, hurricanes can knock out power plants and damage transmission lines, leading to shortages and higher costs. During periods of extreme summer heat across many regions, heatwaves can strain the power grid as increased demand for air conditioning pushes the system to its limits. Such disruptions not only lead to higher immediate costs but also necessitate costly repairs and infrastructure upgrades.

Additionally, the increasing frequency of natural disasters forces utilities to invest in more resilient infrastructure, as many utilities spend more on delivery to harden grids and reduce outages, which adds to overall costs. These investments, while necessary for long-term reliability, contribute to short-term price increases for consumers.

The Transition to Clean Energy

The shift towards clean energy is another pivotal factor influencing electricity prices. While renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and hydro power are crucial for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change, their integration into the existing grid presents challenges.

Renewable energy infrastructure requires substantial initial investment. The construction of wind farms, solar panels, and the associated grid improvements involve significant capital expenditure. These upfront costs are often reflected in electricity prices. Moreover, renewable energy sources can be intermittent, meaning they do not always produce electricity at times of high demand. This intermittency necessitates the development of energy storage solutions and backup systems, which further adds to the costs.

Utilities are also transitioning from fossil fuel-based energy production to cleaner alternatives, a process that involves both technological and operational shifts and intersects with the broader energy crisis impacts on electricity, gas, and EVs nationwide. These changes can temporarily increase costs as utilities phase out old systems and implement new ones. While the long-term benefits of cleaner energy include environmental sustainability and potentially lower operating costs, the transition period can be financially burdensome for consumers.

The Path Forward

Addressing rising electricity prices requires a multifaceted approach. Policymakers must balance the need for immediate relief, as California regulators face calls for action amid soaring bills, with the long-term goals of sustainability and resilience. Investments in energy efficiency can help reduce overall demand and ease pressure on the grid. Expanding and modernizing energy infrastructure to accommodate renewable sources can also mitigate price volatility.

Additionally, efforts to mitigate climate change through improved resilience and adaptive measures can reduce the frequency and impact of extreme weather events, thereby stabilizing energy costs.

Consumer education is vital in this process. Understanding the factors driving electricity prices can empower individuals to make informed decisions about energy consumption and conservation. Furthermore, exploring energy-efficient appliances and practices can help manage costs in the face of rising prices.

In summary, the rising cost of electricity is a multifaceted issue influenced by inflation, climate change, and the transition to clean energy, and recent developments show Germany's rising energy costs in the coming year. While these factors pose significant challenges, they also offer opportunities for innovation and improvement in how we produce, distribute, and consume energy. By addressing these issues with a balanced approach, it is possible to navigate the complexities of rising electricity prices while working towards a more sustainable and resilient energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Five Nations Energy Transmission Line connects remote First Nations to the Ontario power grid, delivering clean, reliable electricity to Western James Bay through Indigenous-owned transmission infrastructure, replacing diesel generators and enabling sustainable community growth.

Key Points

An Indigenous-owned grid link providing reliable power to Western James Bay First Nations, replacing polluting diesel.

✅ Built by five First Nations; fully Indigenous-owned utility

✅ 270 km line connecting remote James Bay communities

✅ Ended diesel dependence; enabled sustainable development

For the Indigenous communities along northern Ontario’s James Bay — the ones that have lived on and taken care of the lands as long as anyone can remember — the new millenium marked the start of a diesel-less future, even as Ontario’s electricity outlook raised concerns about getting dirtier in policy debates. 

While the southern part of the province took Ontario’s power grid for granted, despite lessons from Europe’s power crisis about reliability, the vast majority of these communities had never been plugged in. Their only source of power was a handful of very loud diesel-powered generators. Because of that, daily life in the Attawapiskat, Kashechewan and Fort Albany First Nations involved deliberating a series of tradeoffs. Could you listen to the radio while toasting a piece of bread? How many Christmas lights could you connect before nothing else was usable? Was there enough power to open a new school? 

The communities wanted a safe, reliable, clean alternative, with Manitoba’s clean energy illustrating regional potential, too. So did their chiefs, which is why they passed a resolution in 1996 to connect the area to Ontario’s grid, not just for basic necessities but to facilitate growth and development, and improve their communities’ quality of life. 

The idea was unthinkable at the time — scorned and dismissed by those who held the keys to Ontario’s (electrical) power, much like independent power projects can be in other jurisdictions. Even some in the community didn’t fully understand it. When the idea was first proposed at a gathering of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, which represents 49 First Nations, one attendee said the only way he could picture the connection was as “a little extension cord running through the bush from Moosonee.” 

But the leadership of Attawapiskat, Kashechewan and Fort Albany First Nations had been dreaming and planning. In 1997, along with members of Taykwa Tagamou and Moose Cree First Nations, they created the first, and thus far only, fully Indigenous-owned energy company in Canada: Five Nations Energy Inc., as partnerships like an OPG First Nation hydro project would later show in action, too. 

Over the next five years, the organization built Omushkego Ishkotayo, the Cree name for the Western James Bay transmission line: “Omushkego” refers to the Swampy Cree people, and “Ishkotayo” to hydroelectric power, while other regions were commissioning new BC generating stations in parallel. The 270-kilometre-long transmission line is in one of the most isolated regions of Ontario, one that can only be accessed by plane, except for a few months in winter when ice roads are strong enough to drive on. The project went online in 2001, bringing reliable power to over 7,000 people who were previously underserved by the province’s energy providers. It also, somewhat controversially, enabled Ontario’s first diamond mine in Attawapiskat territory.

The future the First Nations created 25 years ago is blissfully quiet, now that the diesel generators are shut off. “When the power went on, you could hear the birds,” Patrick Chilton, the CEO of Five Nations Energy, said with a smile. “Our communities were glowing.”

Power, politics and money: Five Nations Energy needed government, banks and builders on board
Chilton took over in 2013 after the former CEO, his brother Ed, passed away. “This was all his idea,” Chilton told The Narwhal in a conversation over Zoom from his office in Timmins, Ont. The company’s story has never been told before in full, he said, because he felt “vulnerable” to the forces that fought against Omushkego Ishkotayo or didn’t understand it, a dynamic underscored by Canada’s looming power problem reporting in recent years. 

The success of Five Nations Energy is a tale of unwavering determination and imagination, Chilton said, and it started with his older brother. “Ed was the first person who believed a transmission line was possible,” he said.

In a Timmins Daily Press death notice published July 2, 2013, Ed Chilton is described as having “a quiet but profound impact on the establishment of agreements and enterprises benefitting First Nations peoples and their lands.” Chilton doesn’t describe him that way, exactly. 

“If you knew my brother, he was very stubborn,” he said. A certified engineering technologist, Ed was a visionary whose whole life was defined by the transmission line. He was the first to approach the chiefs with the idea, the first to reach out to energy companies and government officials and the one who persuaded thousands of people in remote, underserved communities that it was possible to bring power to their region.

After that 1996 meeting of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, there came a four-year-long effort to convince the rest of Ontario, and the country, the project was possible and financially viable. The chiefs of the five First Nations took their idea to the halls of power: Queen’s Park, Parliament Hill and the provincial power distributor Hydro One (then Ontario Hydro). 

“All of them said no,” Chilton said. “They saw it as near to impossible — the idea that you could build a transmission line in the ‘swamp,’ as they called it.” The Five Nations Energy team kept a document at the time tracking how many times they heard no; it topped out at 37. 

One of the worst times was in 1998, at a meeting on the 19th floor of the Ontario Hydro building in the heart of downtown Toronto. There, despite all their preparation and planning, a senior member of the Ontario Hydro team told Chilton, Martin and other chiefs “you’ll build that line over my dead body,” Chilton recalled. 

At the time, Chilton said, Ontario Hydro was refusing to cooperate: unwilling to let go of its monopoly over transmission lines, but also saying it was unable to connect new houses in the First Nations to diesel generators it said were at maximum capacity. (Ontario Hydro no longer exists; Hydro One declined to comment.)

“There’s always naysayers no matter what you’re doing,” Martin said. “What we were doing had never been done before. So of course people were telling us how we had never managed something of this size or a budget of this size.” 

“[Our people] basically told them to blow it up your ass. We can do it,” Chilton said.

So the chiefs of the five nations did something they’d never done before: they went to all of the big banks and many, many charitable foundations trying to get the money, a big ask for a project of this scale, in this location. Without outside support, their pitch was that they’d build it themselves.

This was the hardest part of the process, said Lawrence Martin, the former Grand Chief of Mushkegowuk Tribal Council and a member of the Five Nations Energy board. “We didn’t know how to finance something like this, to get loans,” he told The Narwhal. “That was the toughest task for all of us to achieve.”

Eventually, they got nearly $50 million in funding from a series of financial organizations including the Bank of Montreal, Pacific and Western Capital, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation (an Ontario government agency) and the engineering and construction company SNC Lavalin, which did an assessment of the area and deemed the project viable. 

And in 1999, Ed Chilton, other members of the Chilton family and the chiefs were able to secure an agreement with Ontario Hydro that would allow them to buy electricity from the province and sell it to their communities. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

SaskPower Rate Hike 2022-2023 signals higher electricity rates in Saskatchewan as natural gas costs surge; the Rate Review Panel approved increases, affecting residential utility bills amid affordability concerns and government energy policy shifts.

Key Points

An 8% SaskPower electricity rate increase split 4% in Sept 2022 and 4% in Apr 2023, driven by natural gas costs.

✅ 4% increase Sept 1, 2022; +4% on Apr 1, 2023

✅ Panel-approved amid natural gas price surge and higher fuel costs

✅ Avg residential bill up about $5 per step; affordability concerns

The NDP Opposition is condemning the provincial government’s decision to approve the Saskatchewan Rate Review Panel’s recommendation to increase SaskPower’s rates for the first time since 2018, despite a recent 10% rebate pledge by the Sask. Party.

The Crown electrical utility’s rates will increase four per cent this fall, and another four per cent in 2023, a trajectory comparable to BC Hydro increases over two years. According to a government news release issued Thursday, the new rates will result in an average increase of approximately $5 on residential customers’ bills starting on Sept. 1, 2022, and an additional $5 on April 1, 2023.

“The decision to increase rates is not taken lightly and came after a thorough review by the independent Saskatchewan Rate Review Panel,” Minister Responsible for SaskPower Don Morgan said in a news release, amid Nova Scotia’s 14% hike this year. “World events have caused a significant rise in the price of natural gas, and with 42 per cent of Saskatchewan’s electricity coming from natural gas-fueled facilities, SaskPower requires additional revenue to maintain reliable operations.”

But NDP SaskPower critic Aleana Young says the rate hike is coming just as businesses and industries are struggling in an “affordability crisis,” even as Manitoba Hydro scales back a planned increase next year.

She called the announcement of an eight per cent increase in power bills on a summer day before the long weekend “a cowardly move” by the premier and his cabinet, amid comparable changes such as Manitoba’s 2.5% annual hikes now proposed.

“Not to mention the Sask. Party plans to hike natural gas rates by 17% just days from now,” said Young in a news release issued Friday, as Manitoba rate hearings get underway nearby. “If Scott Moe thinks his choices — to not provide Saskatchewan families any affordability relief, to hike taxes and fees, then compound those costs with utility rate hikes — are defensible, he should have the courage to get out of his closed-door meetings and explain himself to the people of this province.”

The province noted natural gas is the largest generation source in SaskPower’s fleet. As federal regulations require the elimination of conventional coal generation in Canada by 2030, SaskPower’s reliance on natural gas generation is expected to grow, with experts in Alberta warning of soaring gas and power prices in the region. Fuel and Purchased Power expense increases are largely driven by increased natural gas prices, and SaskPower’s fuel and purchased power expense is expected to increase from $715 million in 2020-21 to $1.069 billion in 2023-24. This represents a 50 per cent increase in fuel and purchased power expense over three years.

“In the four years since our last increase SaskPower has worked to find internal efficiencies, but at this time we require additional funding to continue to provide reliable and sustainable power,” SaskPower president & CEO Rupen Pandya said in the release “We will continue to be transparent about our rate strategy and the need for regular, moderate increases.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

COVID-19 Impact on US Renewable Energy disrupts solar and wind projects, dries up tax equity financing, strains supply chains, delays construction, and slows jobs growth amid limited federal stimulus and uncertain investor appetite.

Key Points

COVID-19 has slowed US clean energy growth by curbing tax equity, disrupting supply chains, and delaying projects.

✅ Tax equity dries up as investor profits fall

✅ Supply chain and construction face pandemic delays

✅ Policy aid and credit extensions sought by industry

Swinerton Renewable Energy had everything it needed to build a promising new solar farm in Texas. It lined up more than 2,000 acres for the $109 million project estimated to generate 400 jobs while under construction. By its completion date, the solar farm was expected to produce 200 megawatts of energy — enough to power about 25,000 homes — and generate big tax breaks for its investors as part of a government program to incentivize clean energy.

But the coronavirus pandemic put everything on hold. The solar farm’s backers aren’t sure they will make enough money from other investments during the pandemic-fueled downturn for those tax breaks to be worth it. So the project has been delayed at least six months.

“This is not a shortage of materials. It is not a pricing issue,” said George Hershman, president of Swinerton Renewable Energy. “Everything was pointing to successful projects.”

The coronavirus crisis is not only battering the oil and gas industry. It’s drying up capital and disrupting supply chains for businesses trying to move the country toward cleaner sources of energy.

While President Trump has promised lifelines for airlines and oil companies struggling with a drastic decrease in demand as Americans remain under stay-at-home orders, there is little focus in Washington on economic relief for this sector, despite a power coalition's call for action to address the pandemic — unlike during the Great Recession a decade ago, when Congress and the Obama administration earmarked an unprecedented sum for renewable energy and more efficient automobiles in a stimulus bill.

“We don’t want to lose our great oil companies,” Trump said during an April 1 news briefing. He so far has not made a similar promise to help wind and solar firms, and none of the four economic rescue and stimulus packages that Congress has passed to respond to the coronavirus crisis set aside any money for renewable energy specifically.

Sign up for our Coronavirus Updates newsletter to track the outbreak. All stories linked in the newsletter are free to access.

The impact of the crisis is already clear: About 106,000 clean-energy workers have already filed for unemployment in March alone, according to an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data by Environmental Entrepreneurs, an advocacy group.

The layoffs are a blow to a sector that has prided itself on official projections that solar installers and wind turbine technicians would be the two fastest growing occupations over the next decade.

The job losses include not just wind and solar construction workers, but also those assembling electric cars and installing energy-efficient appliances, lighting, heating and air conditioning.

“These aren’t left-wing coastal hippies,” said Bob Keefe, executive director of Environmental Entrepreneurs. “These are construction workers who get up every day and lace up their boots and pull on their gloves and go to work putting insulation in our attics.”

Despite the economic turmoil, climate experts say the coronavirus pandemic could be an opportunity to make drastic shifts in the energy landscape, with green investments potentially driving a robust recovery. They say governments around the world should help fund renewable energy and use the turmoil in energy markets to remake the industry and slash carbon dioxide emissions, which will tumble 8 percent this year, according to the International Energy Agency.

The agency said that while global energy demand fell 3.8 percent in the first quarter, renewables were the only source to post an increase in demand, rising 1.5 percent thanks to new renewable power plants, low operating costs and priority on some electricity grids.

But many investors, who rely on a broad mix of investments, are spooked. “Everything is quiet because people want to see where we land with the current crisis, and people are holding on to cash,” said Daniel Klier, the global head of sustainable finance at HSBC bank. “As soon as people have a bit of confidence that the market is recovering, they can get projects going.”

Social distancing and the country’s stay-at-home orders are also having a deep effect on daily operations. The areas hardest hit are installing solar panels on rooftops and adding energy-efficiency measures inside homes — work that often requires face-to-face interactions. Sungevity, once one of the nation’s leading solar-installation companies, laid off 377 workers, most of its workforce, in late March, according to filings with California’s Employment Development Department. The company, which had emerged from a 2017 bankruptcy, cited economic conditions.

The push to promote a more fuel-efficient automobile fleet has also veered off track. The electric car maker Tesla was forced to shut down its factory in Fremont, Calif., just as it was turning up production on its new crossover vehicle, the Model Y.

Lockdown orders across the country led Tesla’s outspoken chief executive, Elon Musk, to launch into an expletive-laden rant during an earnings call last week in which Tesla posted a lukewarm profit of $16 million.

“To say that they cannot leave their house and they will be arrested if they do,” Musk said, “this is fascist.”

Sungevity and Tesla represent only a sliver of the economic pain in this sector across the country. The Solar Energy Industries Association had anticipated a growth in solar jobs, from 250,000 to 300,000, over the course of the year, said the group’s president, Abigail Ross Hopper. Now, she said, half the workforce is at risk.

“Shelter in place puts limitations on how people can work,” she said. “Literally, people don’t want other people inside their houses to fix electrical boxes. And there are no door-to-door sales.”

Bigger projects are also grappling with the pandemic economy, though not as severely. Hopper said the industry was geared up to increase the number of new solar farms, in part to take advantage of federal tax credits. “We were on track to do almost 20 gigawatts, which would have been the highest year yet,” Hopper said. That would have been enough to power about 3.7 million homes. Now she expects new projects will come closer to last year’s 13.27 gigawatts’ worth of new construction, after a report on utility-scale solar delays warned of widespread slowdowns, enough to run approximately 2.5 million homes.

Wind energy companies, too, are bracing for lost progress unless the federal government steps in. The American Wind Energy Association said projects that would add 25 gigawatts of wind power to the U.S. grid are at risk of being scaled back or canceled outright over the next two years because of the pandemic. Altogether, that work represents about 35,000 jobs.

“2019 was a good year for the wind industry,” said Tom Kiernan, the association’s chief executive. “We were expecting 2020 to be an even stronger year.”

One project put on the back burner: an enormous 9 gigawatt offshore wind venture led by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority set to be completed by 2035.

With New York City besieged by coronavirus cases, the authority said it would comply with an executive order from Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D), “pausing” all on-site work on clean-energy projects until at least May 15. Michigan, New Jersey and Pennsylvania also delayed wind turbine projects by deeming construction on them nonessential.

The Danish offshore wind firm Orsted said that plans for offshore U.S. wind installations would move “at a slower pace than originally expected due to a combination of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s prolonged analysis of the cumulative impacts from the build-out of US offshore wind projects, and now also COVID-19 effects.” The company told investors it expects delays on projects off the coasts of New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island totaling almost 3 gigawatts.

The supply chains have also taken a hit during the pandemic: Even if contractors can get the money to erect wind turbines or lay solar arrays, that doesn’t mean they will have the parts. At least two factories that make wind turbine parts — one in North Dakota and another in Iowa — were forced to pause production because of coronavirus outbreaks. Factory shutdowns in China have constrained solar supplies, too.

The key reason for delaying most big solar and wind projects is the use of tax credits known as “tax equity.” These allow investors, such as banks, to use the credits to directly offset their overall tax burdens. But if an investor doesn’t have enough profit to offset the credits, the tax equity could become worthless.

“If your profitability is going down, you don’t have the same appetite,” Hopper said.

Solar and wind industry leaders are pressing Congress and the Trump administration to extend the eligibility period for tax credits that are due to expire, with senators urging support for clean energy in relief packages, and to make the tax credits refundable, meaning the government would issue a check to investors who do not have enough profit to justify their investments.

Currently, big wind turbines get a 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour tax credit if construction begins before the end of this year. Tax credits for residential renewable energy — solar panels and small wind — phase out by the end of 2021, and debate over a potential solar ITC extension continues to shape expectations in the wind market.

The lack of attention to renewables in Congress’s relief efforts so far is in stark contrast to 2009, when the United States spent $112 billion to boost “green” energy, according to the World Resources Institute. The government’s package then provided a mixture of grants and loans for a variety of renewable energy ventures — including a $465 million loan Tesla used to get its Fremont factory off the ground.

This year, a handful of clean-energy firms, including a Connecticut-based manufacturer of fuel cells and an Ohio-based maker of energy-efficient lighting systems, took money from a federal small-business lending program, before funds ran dry in the middle of last month. Broadwind Energy, a maker of steel wind energy towers based outside Chicago, received $9.5 million in small-business loans, one of the biggest totals in the program.

So far, the Trump administration has shown far more eagerness to help American petroleum producers that the president said were “ravaged” by a sharp drop in energy demand. Last month, Trump met with oil executives at the White House, and Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette has floated the idea of bridge loans for struggling oil firms.

During negotiations for the last relief package, congressional Democrats tried to strike a deal to refill the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve in exchange for extending the clean-energy incentives, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) rebuffed those calls.

“Democrats won’t let us fund hospitals or save small businesses unless they get to dust off the Green New Deal,” McConnell said in March.

Already, Democrats are signaling they will make a push again in the next round of stimulus spending.

“Relief and recovery legislation will shape our society for years to come,” said Rep. A. Donald McEachin (D-Va.), vice chair of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition, a caucus that supports renewable energy resources. “We must use these bills to build in a climate-smart way.”

But it remains unclear how much appetite the GOP will have for a deal. “I just don’t know how to handicap that at this point,” said Grant Carlisle, an analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a major environmental group.

Kiernan, the head of the American Wind Energy Association, said his group has “gotten a very good reception with the administration and with the Hill” when it comes to coronavirus relief, but he declined to go into specifics.

In other parts of the world, governments have been providing support for renewables. The European Union has its own Green New Deal, and China is expected to support wind and solar to get the economy moving more quickly.

Some energy analysts note that big oil companies don’t have to wait for government stimulus. The price of oil is so low that they would be better off investing in wind and solar, they say.

“For all these oil companies, the returns on these renewable projects are better than what they can do in the oil and gas industry,” said Sarah Ladislaw, director of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Now is a good time to do that and tell their investors.”

This fits in with their broader goals, analysts contend. After all, Royal Dutch Shell recently matched BP’s earlier promise to aim to be net-zero for carbon emissions by 2050.

Shell’s chief executive Ben van Beurden has said the company would try to protect its low-carbon Integrated Gas and New Energies division from the largest spending cuts as it sought to weather the pandemic. “We must maintain focus on the long term,” he said in a video message. “Society expects nothing less.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

BC Utilities Commission Site C Dam Questions press BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, stability issues, cost overruns, oversight gaps, seeking transparency for ratepayers and clarity on contracts, mitigation, and the powerhouse and spillway foundations.

Key Points

Inquiry seeking explanations from BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, costs, timelines and oversight for Site C.

✅ Timeline of studies, monitoring, and mitigation actions

✅ Rationale for contracts, costs, and right bank construction

✅ Implications for ratepayers, oversight, and project stability

The watchdog B.C. Utilities Commission has sent BC Hydro 70 questions about the troubled Site C dam, asking when geotechnical risks were first identified and when the project’s assurance board was first made aware of potential issues related to the dam’s stability. 

“I think they’ve come to the conclusion — but they don’t say it — that there’s been a cover-up by BC Hydro and by the government of British Columbia,” former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen told The Narwhal. 

On Oct. 21, The Narwhal reported that two top B.C. civil servants, including the senior bureaucrat who prepares Site C dam documents for cabinet, knew in May 2019 that the project faced serious geotechnical problems due to its “weak foundation” and the stability of the dam was “a significant risk.” 

Get The Narwhal in your inbox!
People always tell us they love our newsletter. Find out yourself with a weekly dose of our ad‑free, independent journalism

“They [the civil servants] would have reported to their ministers and to the government in general,” said Eliesen, who is among 18 prominent Canadians calling for a halt to Site C work until an independent team of experts can determine if the geotechnical problems can be resolved and at what cost.  

“It’s disingenuous for Premier [John] Horgan to try to suggest, ‘Well, I just found out about it recently.’ If that’s the case, he should fire the public servants who are representing the province.” 

The public only found out about significant issues with the Site C dam at the end of July, when BC Hydro released overdue reports saying the project faces unknown cost overruns, schedule delays and, even as it achieved a transmission line milestone earlier, such profound geotechnical troubles that its overall health is classified as ‘red,’ meaning it is in serious trouble. 

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years.”

The Site C dam is the largest publicly funded infrastructure project in B.C.’s history. If completed, it will flood 128 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries, forcing families from their homes and destroying Indigenous gravesites, hundreds of protected archeological sites, some of Canada’s best farmland and habitat for more than 100 species vulnerable to extinction.

Eliesen said geotechnical risks were a key reason BC Hydro’s board of directors rejected the project in the early 1990s, when he was at the helm of BC Hydro.

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years,” said Eliesen, who is also the former Chair and CEO of Ontario Hydro, where Ontario First Nations have urged intervention on a critical electricity line, the former Chair of Manitoba Hydro and the former Chair and CEO of the Manitoba Energy Authority.

Elsewhere, a Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota has faced potential delays, highlighting broader grid planning challenges.

The B.C. Utilities Commission is an independent watchdog that makes sure ratepayers — including BC Hydro customers — receive safe and reliable energy services, as utilities adapt to climate change risks, “at fair rates.”

The commission’s questions to BC Hydro include 14 about the “foundational enhancements” BC Hydro now says are necessary to shore up the Site C dam, powerhouse and spillways. 

The commission is asking BC Hydro to provide a timeline and overview of all geotechnical engineering studies and monitoring activities for the powerhouse, spillway and dam core areas, and to explain what specific risk management and mitigation practices were put into effect once risks were identified.

The commission also wants to know why construction activities continued on the right bank of the Peace River, where the powerhouse would be located, “after geotechnical risks materialized.” 

It’s asking if geotechnical risks played a role in BC Hydro’s decision in March “to suspend or not resume work” on any components of the generating station and spillways.

The commission also wants BC Hydro to provide an itemized breakdown of a $690 million increase in the main civil works contract — held by Spain’s Acciona S.A. and the South Korean multinational conglomerate Samsung C&T Corp. — and to explain the rationale for awarding a no-bid contract to an unnamed First Nation and if other parties were made aware of that contract. 

Peace River Jewels of the Peace Site C The Narwhal
Islands in the Peace River, known as the ‘jewels of the Peace’ will be destroyed for fill for the Site C dam or will be submerged underwater by the dam’s reservoir, a loss that opponents are sharing with northerners in community discussions. Photo: Byron Dueck

B.C. Utilities Commission chair and CEO David Morton said it’s not the first time the commission has requested additional information after receiving BC Hydro’s quarterly progress reports on the Site C dam. 

“Our staff reads them to make sure they understand them and if there’s anything in then that’s not clear we go then we do go through this, we call it the IR — information request — process,” Morton said in an interview.

“There are things reported in here that we felt required a little more clarity, and we needed a little more understanding of them, so that’s why we asked the questions.”

The questions were sent to BC Hydro on Oct. 23, the day before the provincial election, but Morton said the commission is extraordinarily busy this year and that’s just a coincidence. 

“Our resources are fairly strained. It would have been nice if it could have been done faster, it would be nice if everything could be done faster.” 

“These questions are not politically motivated,” Morton said. “They’re not political questions. There’s no reason not to issue them when they’re ready.”

The commission has asked BC Hydro to respond by Nov. 19.

Read more: Top B.C. government officials knew Site C dam was in serious trouble over a year ago: FOI docs

Morton said the independent commission’s jurisdiction is limited because the B.C. government removed it from oversight of the project. 

The commission, which would normally determine if a large dam like the Site C project is in the public’s financial interest, first examined BC Hydro’s proposal to build the dam in the early 1980s.

After almost two years of hearings, including testimony under oath, the commission concluded B.C. did not need the electricity. It found the Site C dam would have negative social and environmental impacts and said geothermal power should be investigated to meet future energy needs. 

The project was revived in 2010 by the BC Liberal government, which touted energy from the Site C dam as a potential source of electricity for California and a way to supply B.C.’s future LNG industry with cheap power.

Not willing to countenance another rejection from the utilities commission, the government changed the law, stripping the commission of oversight for the project. The NDP government, which came to power in 2017, chose not to restore that oversight.

“The approval of the project was exempt from our oversight,” Morton said. “We can’t come along and say ‘there’s something we don’t like about what you’re doing, we’re going to stop construction.’ We’re not in that position and that’s not the focus of these questions.” 

But the commission still retains oversight for the cost of construction once the project is complete, Morton said. 

“The cost of construction has to be recovered in [hydro] rates. That means BC Hydro will need our approval to recover their construction cost in rates, and those are not insignificant amounts, more than $10.7 billion, in all likelihood.” 

In order to recover the cost from ratepayers, the commission needs to be satisfied BC Hydro didn’t spend more money than necessary on the project, Morton said. 

“As you can imagine, that’s not a straight forward review to do after the fact, after a 10-year construction project or whatever it ends up being … so we’re using these quarterly reports as an opportunity to try to stay on top of it and to flag any areas where we think there may be areas we need to look into in the future.”

The price tag for the Site C dam was $10.7 billion before BC Hydro’s announcement at the end of July — a leap from $6.6 billion when the project was first announced in 2010 and $8.8 billion when construction began in 2015. 

Eliesen said the utilities commission should have been asking tough questions about the Site C dam far earlier. 

“They’ve been remiss in their due diligence activities … They should have been quicker in raising questions with BC Hydro, rather than allowing BC Hydro to be exceptionally late in submitting their reports.” 

BC Hydro is late in filing another Site C quarterly report, covering the period from April 1 to June 30. 

The quarterly reports provide the B.C. public with rare glimpses of a project that international hydro expert Harvey Elwin described as being more secretive than any hydro project he has encountered in five decades working on large dams around the world, including in China.

Read more: Site C dam secrecy ‘extraordinary’, international hydro construction expert tells court proceeding

Morton said the commission could have ordered regular reporting for the Site C project if it had its previous oversight capability.

“Then we would have had the ability to follow up and ultimately order any delinquent reports to be filed. In this circumstance, they are being filed voluntarily. They can file it as late as they choose. We don’t have any jurisdiction.” 

In addition to the six dozen questions, the commission has also filed confidential questions with BC Hydro. Morton said confidential information could include things such as competitive bid information. “BC Hydro itself may be under a confidentiality agreement not to disclose it.” 

With oversight, the commission would also have been able to drill down into specific project elements,  Morton said. 

“We would have wanted to ensure that the construction followed what was approved. BC Hydro wouldn’t have the ability to make significant changes to the design and nature of the project as they went along.”

BC Hydro has been criticized for changing the design of the Site C dam to an L-shape, which Eliesen said “has never been done anywhere in the world for an earthen dam.” 

Morton said an empowered commission could have opted to hold a public hearing about the design change and engage its own technical consultants, as it did in 2017 when the new NDP government asked it to conduct a fast-tracked review of the project’s economics. 

Construction Site C Dam
A recent report by a U.S. energy economist found cancelling the Site C dam project would save BC Hydro customers an initial $116 million a year, with increasing savings growing over time. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

The commission’s final report found the dam could cost more than $12 billion, that BC Hydro had a historical pattern of overestimating energy demand and that the same amount of energy could be produced by a suite of renewables, including wind and proposed pumped storage such as the Meaford project, for $8.8 billion or less. 

The NDP government, under pressure from construction trade unions, opted to continue the project, refusing to disclose key financial information related to its decision. 

When the geotechnical problems were revealed in July, the government announced the appointment of former deputy finance minister Peter Milburn as a special Site C project advisor who will work with BC Hydro and the Site C project assurance board to examine the project and provide the government with independent advice.

Eliesen said BC Hydro and the B.C. government should never have allowed the recent diversion of the Peace River to take place given the tremendous geotechnical challenges the project faces and its unknown cost and schedule for completion. 

“It’s a disgrace and scandalous,” he said. “You can halt the river diversion, but you’ve got another four or five years left in construction of the dam. What are you going to do about all the cement you’ve poured if you’ve got stability problems?”

He said it’s counter-productive to continue with advice “from the same people who have been wrong, wrong, wrong,” without calling in independent global experts to examine the geotechnical problems. 

“If you stop construction, whether it takes three or six months, that’s the time that’s required in order to give yourself a comfort level. But continuing to do what you’ve been doing is not the right course. You should have to sit back.”

Eliesen said it reminded him of the Pete Seeger song Waist Deep in the Big Muddy, which tells the story of a captain ordering his troops to keep slogging through a river because they will soon be on dry ground. After the captain drowns, the troops turn around.

“It’s a reflection of the fact that if you don’t look at what’s new, you just keep on doing what you’ve been doing in the past and that, unfortunately, is what’s happening here in this province with this project.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News