A Mississauga councillor has defended the extra salary he gets for sitting on the city's hydro board by saying comparisons with Toronto Hydro are unfair and unmerited.
"Toronto is a lemonade stand. We are IBM," said Nando Iannicca of Enersource Corp., formerly Mississauga Hydro, during an energetic council discussion recently.
Toronto Hydro, in fact, is a much larger operation. City politicians who sit on its board get no extra pay for their services.
Iannicca was defending the $33,000 to $44,000 income supplement that Mississauga councillors get to sit on the Enersource board, saying they deserve compensation for their contributions.
He said a big difference between the two utilities is that Enersource, which can issue bonds, is subject to Ontario Securities Commission scrutiny and the onerous responsibility of "continuous disclosure."
However, Toronto Hydro spokesperson Tanya Bruckmeller said her utility also has public debt and is monitored in the same way by the OSC.
Iannicca later said his comments on Toronto Hydro's OSC status were based on information provided to him by Enersource staff.
For the fiscal year of 2005, Enersource reported revenues of $793,083,000, while Toronto Hydro's were more than triple that at $2,612,585,000.
The discussion followed the council's decision to raise its representation from two to four seats on the 10-member board of Enersource, which is 90 per cent owned by the city.
Mayor Hazel McCallion, the council's other representative on the Enersource board, then called for a review of the payment structure, because of general inconsistencies in how councillors are rewarded for taking on extra duties.
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.”
Senate Renewable Energy Tax Credits face Finance Committee scrutiny, with Democrats urging action on tax extenders, clean energy incentives, and climate policy, while Republicans cite prior wins in wind, biodiesel, and EV credits.
Key Points
Legislative incentives debated in the Senate Finance Committee to extend and align clean energy tax benefits.
✅ Democrats press hearings and action on energy tax policy
✅ Focus on clean energy, EVs, wind, biodiesel, and resilience
✅ Grassley cites prior extenders; disputes push for bigger subsidies
A group of 27 Democratic senators is calling for action in the Senate Finance Committee on extending energy-related tax credits and examining new tax proposals, especially those that incentivize renewable energy projects and align with FERC action on aggregated DERs across the grid.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, who recently introduced a wildfire-resilient grid bill with Sen. Merkley, led the group of Democrats in writing a letter Tuesday to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who chairs the committee.
“Despite numerous opportunities, including in the recent tax extenders package, the Finance Committee has failed to take action on the dozens of energy tax proposals pending before it,” they wrote. “It is critical that the Committee move to address these issues in a timely manner, along with much needed policy changes that heed warnings on regulatory rollbacks to combat the damage and growing dangers caused by global climate change.”
The number of Americans ages 65 and over is projected to nearly double by 2060. And most would prefer to age in place and hiresenior caregivers if needed.
They pointed out that the Senate Finance Committee hasn’t held a single hearing on energy tax policy during the previous congressional term, and has yet to hold one in the current one.
“The sole energy tax-related recommendation of the Committee’s temporary policy task forces was ignored in the tax extender legislation passed in December 2019, along with nearly all proposals put forward in members’ legislation this Congress,” they wrote. “This Committee must fulfill its role in examining members’ energy tax proposals and in bolstering our nation’s efforts to combat climate change, including a clean electricity standard approach that sets firm targets.”
They noted that In 2019, the global average temperature was the second highest ever recorded and the past decade was the hottest ever. The lawmakers pointed to raging wildfires and increased flooding in the western part of the U.S., as well as challenges in California’s power system during the transition, causing unprecedented destruction over the past several years. They called for tax incentives for renewable energy to help combat climate change.
“Gaps in the tax code have disadvantaged complementary technologies that could improve climate resiliency and provide additional emissions reductions,” they wrote. “While power sector emissions continue to decrease, emissions from transportation, heavy industry and agriculture have stayed level or increased over the past 10 years, even amid $5 gas not spurring a green shift in consumer behavior. The United States is not on pace to meet its international climate commitments, to say nothing of the reductions necessary to stave off the worst potential outcomes of global warming.”
Grassley reacted to the letter, noting that he had worked to get tax extenders legislation passed, even as some states consider bans on clean energy use by utilities. "I begged Democrats for a year to help me get an extenders package passed, about half of which were green energy policies, so this rings hollow," he said in a statement Tuesday. "We wouldn’t have a wind energy credit or a biodiesel credit but for me, let alone an extension of either. Democrats were holding up these green energy provisions in an attempt to get a big expansion of taxpayer subsidies for rich Tesla owners."
Daimler Electric Strategy drives EV adoption with global battery factories, Mercedes-Benz electrified models, battery cells procurement, and major investments spanning vans, buses, trucks, and production capacity across Europe, Asia, and the USA.
Key Points
Daimler Electric Strategy is a multi-billion EV roadmap for batteries, factories, and 130 electrified Mercedes models.
✅ Eight battery factories across three continents
✅ EUR 10B for EV lineup; EUR 20B for battery cells
✅ 130 electrified variants plus vans, buses, trucks
Throughout 2018, we all witnessed the unprecedented volume of promises for a better future made by the giants of the auto industry. All say they've committed billions so that, within a decade, combustion engines will be on their way out.
The most active of all companies when talking about promises is Volkswagen, which, amid German plant closures, time and time again has said it will do this or that and completely change the meaning of car in the coming years. But there are other planning the same thing, possibly with even vaster resources.
Planning to end the year on a high note, Daimler detailed its plan for the electric future once again on Tuesday, this time making no secret of its gigantic size and scope.
As announced before, Daimler plans to build electric cars, but also manufacture electric batteries for its own and others’ use, and has launched a US energy storage company to support this strategy. These batteries will eventually be produced by Daimler in eight factories on three continents.
Batteries are already rolling off the lines in Kamenz, and a second facility will begin doing so next year. Two more factories will be built in Stuttgart-Untertürkheim, one at the company’s Sindelfingen site, and one each at the sites in Beijing (China), Bangkok (Thailand) and Tuscaloosa (USA).
In all, one billion EUR will be invested in the expansion of the global battery production network, but that is nothing compared to the 10 billion to be poured into the expansion of the Mercedes-Benz car fleet.
On top of that, 20 billion EUR will go towards the purchase of battery cells from producers all around the world, echoing other automakers' battery sourcing strategies worldwide over the next 12 years.
“After investing billions of euros in the development of the electric fleet and the expansion of our global battery network, we are now taking the next step,” said in a statement Dieter Zetsche, Daimler chairman of the board.
“With the purchase of battery cells for more than 20 billion euros, we are systematically pushing forward with the transformation into the electric future of our company.”
By 2022, the carmaker plans to launch 130 electrified variants of its cars, as cheaper, more powerful batteries become available, adding to them electric vans, buses and trucks. That pretty much means all the models and variants sold by Daimler globally will be at least partially powered by electricity.
Alaska Coal-Fired CHP Plant opens near Usibelli mine, supplying electricity and district heat to UAF; remote location without gas pipelines, low wind and solar potential, and high heating demand shaped fuel choice.
Key Points
A 17 MW coal CHP at UAF producing power and campus heat, chosen for remoteness and lack of gas pipelines.
✅ 17 MW generator supplying electricity and district heat
✅ Near Usibelli mine; limited pipeline access shapes fuel
✅ Alternative options like LNG, wind, solar not cost-effective
One way to boost coal in the US: Find a spot near a mine with no access to oil or natural gas pipelines, where it’s not particularly windy and it’s dark much of the year.
That’s how the first coal-fired plant to open in the U.S. since 2015 bucked the trend in an industry that’s seen scores of facilities close in recent years. A 17-megawatt generator, built for $245 million, is set to open in April at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, just 100 miles from the state’s only coal mine.
“Geography really drove what options are available to us,” said Kari Burrell, the university’s vice chancellor for administrative services, in an interview. “We are not saying this is ideal by any means.”
The new plant is arriving as coal fuels about 25 percent of electrical generation in the U.S., down from 45 percent a decade earlier, even as some forecasts point to a near-term increase in coal-fired generation in 2021. A near-record 18 coal plants closed in 2018, and 14 more are expected to follow this year, according to BloombergNEF.
The biggest bright spot for U.S. coal miners recently has been exports to overseas power plants. At home, one of the few growth areas has been in pizza ovens.
There are a handful of other U.S. coal power projects that have been proposed, including plans to build an 850 megawatt facility in Georgia and an 895 megawatt plant in Kansas, even as a Minnesota utility reports declining coal returns across parts of its portfolio. But Ashley Burke, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, said she’s unaware of any U.S. plants actively under development besides the one in Alaska.
Future of power
“The future of power in the U.S. does not include coal,” Tessie Petion, an analyst for HSBC Holdings Plc, said in a research note, a view echoed by regions such as Alberta retiring coal power early in their transition.
Fairbanks sits on the banks of the Chena River, amid the vast subarctic forests in the heart of Alaska. The oil and gas fields of the state’s North slope are 500 miles north. The nearest major port is in Anchorage, 350 miles south.
The university’s new plant is a combined heat and power generator, which will create steam both to generate electricity and heat campus buildings. Before opting for coal, the school looked into using liquid natural gas, wind and solar, bio-mass and a host of other options, as new projects in Southeast Alaska seek lower electricity costs across the region. None of them penciled out, said Mike Ruckhaus, a senior project manager at the university.
The project, financed with university and state-municipal bonds, replaces a coal plant that went into service in 1964. University spokeswoman Marmian Grimes said it’s worth noting that the new plant will emit fewer emissions.
The coal will come from Usibelli Coal Mine Inc., a family-owned business that produces between 1.2 and 2 million tons per year from a mine along the Alaska railroad, according to the company’s website.
While any new plant is good news for coal miners, Clarksons Platou Securities Inc. analyst Jeremy Sussman said this one is "an isolated situation."
“We think the best producers can hope for domestically is a slow down in plant closures,” he said, even as jurisdictions like Alberta close their last coal plant entirely.
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.
UK Energy Price Guarantee Cost forecasts from Cornwall Insight suggest an £89bn bill, tied to wholesale gas prices, OBR projections, and fiscal policy, to shield households amid the cost of living crisis.
Key Points
It is the projected government spend to cap household bills, driven by wholesale gas prices and OBR market forecasts.
✅ Base case: £89bn over two years, per Cornwall Insight
✅ Range: £72bn to £140bn, volatile wholesale gas costs
✅ Excludes 6-month business support estimated at £22bn-£48bn
Liz Truss’s intervention to freeze energy prices for households for two years is expected to cost the government £89bn, according to the first major costing of the policy by the sector’s leading consultancy.
The analysis from Cornwall Insight, seen exclusively by the Guardian, shows the prime minister’s plan to tackle the cost of living crisis could cost as much as £140bn in a worst-case scenario.
Truss announced in early September that the average annual bill for a typical household would be capped at £2,500 to protect consumers from the intensifying cost of living crisis amid high winter energy costs and a scheduled 80% rise in the cap to £3,549.
The ultimate cost of the policy is uncertain as it is highly dependent on the wholesale cost of gas, including UK natural gas prices which have soared since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine put a squeeze on already-volatile international markets. Ballpark projections had put the cost anywhere from £100bn to £150bn.
The Office for Budget Responsibility is expected to give its forecast for the bill when it provides its independent assessment of Kwasi Kwarteng’s medium-term fiscal plan, which the chancellor said on Tuesday would still happen on 23 November despite previous reports that it would be brought forward.
Cornwall Insight analysed projections of wholesale market moves to cost the intervention. In its base case scenario, analysts expect the policy to cost £89bn. That assumes the cost of supporting each household would be just over £1,000 in the first year, and about £2,000 in the second year.
The study’s authors said the wholesale price of gas would be influenced by energy demand, the severity of weather, “geo-political uncertainty” and prices for liquified natural gas as Europe seeks to refill storage facilities, which countries have rushed to fill up this winter but which could be relatively empty by next spring.
In the best-case outcome, the policy would cost £72bn, with some projections pointing to a 16% decrease in energy bills in April for households, while the “extreme high” outlook would see the government shell out £140bn to protect 29m UK households.
Gas prices are expected to push even higher if the Kremlin decides to completely cut off Russian gas exports into Europe.
Cornwall Insight’s projection does not include a separate six-month initiative to cap costs for companies, charities and public sector organisations, which is forecast to cost £22bn to £48bn.
The consultancy’s chief executive, Gareth Miller, said the £70bn range in its forecasts reflected “a febrile wholesale market continuing to be beset by geopolitical instability, sensitivity to demand, weather and infrastructure resilience”.
He said: “Fortune befriends the bold, but it also favours the prepared. The large uncertainties around commodity markets over the next two years means that the government could get lucky with costs coming out at the low end of the range, but the opposite could also be true.
“In each case, the government may find itself passengers to circumstances outside its control, having made policy that is a hostage to surprises, events and volatile factors. That’s a difficult position to be in.”
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The government has faced criticism, as some British MPs urge tighter limits on prices, that the policy is effectively a “blank cheque” and is not targeted at the most vulnerable in society.
Concerns over how Truss and Kwarteng intend to fund a series of measures, including the price guarantee, have spooked financial markets.
The EU, which has outlined possible gas price cap strategies in recent proposals, said last week it planned to cap the revenues of low-carbon electricity generators at €180 a megawatt hour, which is less than half current market prices. Truss has so far resisted calls to extend a levy on North Sea oil and gas operators to electricity generators, who have benefited from a link between gas and electricity prices in Britain.
Truss hopes to strike voluntary long-term deals with generators including Centrica and EDF, alongside the government’s Energy Security Bill measures, to bring down wholesale prices.
The Financial Times reported on Tuesday that the government has threatened companies with legislation to cap their revenues if voluntary deals cannot be agreed.
