Alternative energy powers growth along I-39 corridor

Enegix Base One Green Hydrogen Plant will produce renewable hydrogen via electrolysis in Ceara, Brazil, leveraging 3.4 GW baseload renewables, offshore wind, and hydro to scale clean energy, storage, and export logistics.

Key Points

A $5.4bn Ceara, Brazil project to produce 600m kg of green hydrogen annually using 3.4 GW of baseload renewables.

✅ 3.4 GW baseload from hydro and offshore wind pipelines

✅ Targets 600m kg green hydrogen per year via electrolysis

✅ Focus on storage, transport, and export supply chains

In March, Enegix Energy announced some of the most ambitious hydrogen plans the world has ever seen. The company signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the government of the Brazilian state of Ceará to build the world’s largest green hydrogen plant in the state on the country’s north-eastern coast, and the figures are staggering.

The Base One facility will produce more than 600 million kilograms of green hydrogen annually from 3.4GW of baseload renewable energy, and receive $5.4bn in investment to get the project off the ground and producing within four years.

Green hydrogen, hydrogen produced by electrolysis that is powered by renewables, has significant potential as a clean energy source. Already seeing increased usage in the transport sector, the power source boasts the energy efficiency and the environmental viability to be a cornerstone of the world’s energy mix.

Yet practical challenges have often derailed large-scale green hydrogen projects, from the inherent obstacle of requiring separate renewable power facilities to the logistical and technological challenges of storing and transporting hydrogen. Could vast investment, clever planning, and supportive governments and programs like the DOE’s hydrogen hubs initiative help Enegix to deliver on green hydrogen’s oft-touted potential?

Brazilian billions
The Base One project is exceptional not only for its huge scale, but the timing of its construction, with demand for hydrogen set to increase dramatically over the next few decades. Figures from Wood Mackenzie suggest that hydrogen could account for 1.4 billion tonnes of energy demand by 2050, one-tenth of the world’s supply, with green hydrogen set to be the majority of this figure.

Yet considering that, prior to the announcement of the Enegix project, global green hydrogen capacity was just 94MW, advances in offshore green hydrogen and the development of a project of this size and scope could scale up the role of green hydrogen by orders of magnitude.

“We really need to [advance clean energy] without any emissions on a completely clean, carbon neutral and net-zero framework, and so we needed access to a large amount of green energy projects,” explains Wesley Cooke, founder and CEO of Enegix, a goal aligned with analyses that zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is possible, discussing the motivation behind the vast project.

With these ambitious goals in mind, the company needed to find a region with a particular combination of political will and environmental traits to enable such a project to take off.

“When we looked at all of these key things: pipeline for renewables, access to water, cost of renewables, and appetite for renewables, Brazil really stood out to us,” Cooke continues. “The state of Ceará, that we’ve got an MOU with the government in at the moment, ticks all of these boxes.”

Ceará’s own clean energy plans align with Enegix’s, at least in terms of their ambition and desire for short-term development. Last October, the state announced that it plans to add 5GW of new offshore wind capacity in the next five years. With BI Energia alone providing $2.5bn in investment for its 1.2GW Camocim wind facility, there is significant financial muscle behind these lofty ambitions.

“One thing I should add is that Brazil is very blessed when it comes to baseload renewables,” says Cooke. “They have an incredibly high percentage of their country-wide energy that comes from renewable sources and a lot of this is in part due to the vast hydro schemes that they have for hydro dams. Not a lot of countries have that, and specifically when you’re trying to produce hydrogen, having access to vast amounts of renewables [is vital].”

Changing perceptions and tackling challenges
This combination of vast investment and integration with the existing renewable power infrastructure of Ceará could have cultural impacts too. The combination of state support for and private investment in clean energy offsets many of the narratives emerging from Brazil concerning its energy policies and environmental protections, even as debates over clean energy's trade-offs persist in Brazil and beyond, from the infamous Brumadinho disaster to widespread allegations of illegal deforestation and gold mining.

“I can’t speak for the whole of Brazil, but if we look at Ceará specifically, and even from what we’ve seen from a federal government standpoint, they have been talking about a hydrogen roadmap for Brazil for quite some time now,” says Cooke, highlighting the state’s long-standing support for green hydrogen. “I think we came in at the perfect time with a very solid plan for what we wanted to do, [and] we’ve had nothing but great cooperation, and even further than just cooperation, excitement around the MOU.”

This narrative shift could help overcome one of the key challenges facing many hydrogen projects, the idea that its practical difficulties render it fundamentally unsuitable for baseload power generation. By establishing a large-scale green hydrogen facility in a country that has recently struggled to present itself as one that is invested in renewables, the Base One facility could be the ultimate proof that such clean hydrogen projects are viable.

Nevertheless, practical challenges remain, as is the case with any energy project of this scale. Cooke mentions a number of solutions to two of the obstacles facing hydrogen production around the world: renewable energy storage and transportation of the material.

“We were looking at compressed hydrogen via specialised tankers [and] we were looking at liquefied hydrogen, [as] you have to get liquefied hydrogen very cool to around -253°, and you can use 30% to 40% of your total energy that you started with just to get it down to that temperature,” Cooke explains.

“The other aspect is that if you’re transporting this internationally, you really have to think about the supply chain. If you land in a country like Indonesia, that’s wonderful, but how do you get it from Indonesia to the customers that need it? What is the supply chain? What does that look like? Does it exist today?”

The future of green hydrogen
These practical challenges present something of a chicken and egg problem for the future of green hydrogen: considerable up-front investment is required for functions such as storage and transport, but the difficulties of these functions can scare off investors and make such investments uncommon.

Yet with the world’s environmental situation increasingly dire, more dramatic, and indeed risky, moves are needed to alter its energy mix, and Enegix is one company taking responsibility and accepting these risks.

“We need to have the renewables to match the dirty fuel types,” Cooke says. “This [investment] will really come from the decisions that are being made right now by large-scale companies, multi-billion-euro-per-year revenue companies, committing to building out large scale factories in Europe and Asia, to support PEM [hydrolysis].”

This idea of large-scale green hydrogen is also highly ambitious, considering the current state of the energy source. The International Renewable Energy Agency reports that around 95% of hydrogen comes from fossil fuels, so hydrogen has a long ways to go to clean up its own carbon footprint before going on to displace fossil fuel-driven industries.

Yet this displacement is exactly what Enegix is targeting. Cooke notes that the ultimate goal of Enegix is not simply to increase hydrogen production for use in a single industry, such as clean vehicles. Instead, the idea is to develop green hydrogen infrastructure to the point where it can replace coal and oil as a source of baseload power, leapfrogging other renewables to form the bedrock of the world’s future energy mix.

“The problem with [renewable] baseload is that they’re intermittent; the wind’s not always blowing and the sun’s not always shining and batteries are still very expensive, although that is changing. When you put those projects together and look at the levelised cost of energy, this creates a chasm, really, for baseload.

“And for us, this is really where we believe that hydrogen needs to be thought of in more detail and this is what we’re really evangelising about at the moment.”

A more hydrogen-reliant energy mix could also bring social benefits, with Cooke suggesting that the same traits that make hydrogen unwieldy in countries with established energy infrastructures could make hydrogen more practically viable in other parts of the world.

“When you look at emerging markets and developing markets at the moment, the power infrastructure in some cases can be quite messy,” Cooke says. “You’ve got the potential for either paying for the power or extending your transmission grid, but rarely being able to do both of those.

“I think being able to do that last mile piece, utilising liquid organic hydrogen carrier as an energy vector that’s very cost-effective, very scalable, non-toxic, and non-flammable; [you can] get that power where you need it.

“We believe hydrogen has the potential to be very cost-effective at scale, supporting a vision of cheap, abundant electricity over time, but also very modular and usable in many different use cases.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

OEB Disconnection Ban shields Ontario residential customers under the stay-at-home order, pausing electricity distributor shutoffs for non-payment and linking COVID-19 Energy Assistance Program credits for small businesses, charities, and overdue utility bills.

Key Points

A pause on electricity shutoff notices during Ontario's stay-at-home order, with COVID-19 bill credits for customers.

✅ Distributors cannot issue residential disconnection notices.

✅ Applies through the stay-at-home order timeline.

✅ CEAP credits: $750 residential; $1,500 small biz and charities.

With Ontario now into the third province-wide lockdown, the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) has promised residents won't have to worry about their power being shut off.

On April 8, the Province issued the third stay-at-home order in the last 13 months which is scheduled to last for 28 days until at least May 6, as electricity rates and policies continue to shift.

On April 30, the annual winter disconnection ban is set to expire, meaning electricity distributors like Hydro One would normally be permitted to issue disconnection notices for non-payment as early as 14 days before the end of the ban.

However, the OEB has announced changes for electricity consumers that prohibit electricity distributors from issuing disconnection notices to residential customers for the entirety of the stay-at-home order.

Additionally, the COVID-19 Energy Assistance Program is available for residential, small business, and registered charity customers who have overdue amounts on their electricity or gas bills as a result of the pandemic, complementing support for electric bills introduced during COVID-19, and the fixed COVID-19 hydro rate that helped stabilize costs.

Those who meet these criteria are eligible for credits up to a maximum of $750 for residential customers and $1,500 for small businesses and charities, alongside earlier moves to set an off-peak price to ease costs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Rosatom-RAS Cooperation drives joint R&D in nuclear energy, nuclear medicine, fusion, particle accelerators, laser technologies, fuel cycle safety, radioactive waste management, and supercomputing, aligning strategic planning and standards to accelerate innovation across Russia's nuclear sector.

Key Points

A pact uniting Rosatom and RAS on nuclear R&D, fusion, and medicine to advance nuclear technologies across Russia.

✅ Joint R&D in fusion, accelerators, lasers, and new materials

✅ Focus on fuel cycle closure, safety, and waste management

✅ Shared strategic planning, standards, and expert evaluation

Russian state atomic energy corporation Rosatom and the Russian State Academy of Sciences are to cooperate on joint scientific, technical and innovative activities in areas including nuclear energy, nuclear medicine and other areas of the electricity sector under an agreement signed in Moscow on 7 February.

The cooperation agreement was signed by Rosatom Director General Alexei Likhachov and President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexander Sergeev during a joint meeting to mark Russian Science Day. Under its terms, the partners will cooperate in organising research and development activities aimed at providing technological advantages in various sectors of the domestic industry, as well as creating and developing interdisciplinary scientific and technological centres and organisations supporting energy sector training and innovation. They will also jointly develop strategic planning documents, improve the technical and scientific regulatory and legal framework, and carry out expert evaluations of scientific and technical projects and scientific consultations.

Rosatom said the main areas of cooperation in the agreement are: the development of laser technologies and particle accelerators; the creation of modern diagnostic equipment, nuclear medicine and radiation therapy; controlled thermonuclear fusion; nuclear energy of the future; new materials; the nuclear fuel cycle and its closure; safety of nuclear energy and power sector pandemic response preparedness; environmental aspects of radioactive waste management; modern supercomputers, databases, application packages, and import-substituting codes; and also X-ray astronomy and nuclear planetology.

Likhachov said joint activities between Rosatom and the Academy would strengthen the Russian nuclear industry's "leadership" in the world and allow the creation of new technologies that would shape the future image of the nuclear industry in Russia. "Within the framework of the Agreement, we intend to expand work on the entire spectrum of advanced scientific research. The most important direction of our cooperation will be the integration of fundamental, exploratory and applied scientific research, including in the interests of the development of the nuclear industry. We will work together to form the nuclear energy industry of the future, and enhance grid resilience, to create new materials, new radiation technologies,” he said.

Sergeyev noted the "rich history" of cooperation between the Academy of Sciences and the nuclear industry, including modern safety practices such as arc flash training that support operations. “All major projects in the field of military and peaceful nuclear energy were carried out jointly by scientists and specialists of our organisations, which largely ensured their timeliness and success," he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

Ontario Peak Perks Program boosts energy efficiency with smart thermostats, demand response, and incentives, reducing peak demand, electricity costs, and emissions while supporting grid reliability and Save on Energy initiatives across Ontario businesses and homes.

Key Points

A demand response initiative offering incentives via smart thermostats to cut peak electricity use and lower costs

✅ $75 sign-up, $20 yearly enrollment incentive

✅ Up to 10 summer temperature events; opt-out anytime

✅ Expanded retrofits, greenhouse support, grid savings

The Ontario government is launching the new Peak Perks program to help families save money by conserving energy, building on bill support during COVID-19 initiatives as part of the government’s $342 million expansion of Ontario’s energy-efficiency programs that will reduce demands on the provincial grid. The government is also launching three new and enhanced programs for businesses, municipalities, and other institutions, including targeted support for greenhouse growers in Southwest Ontario.

“Our government is giving families more ways to lower their energy bills with new energy-efficiency programs like Peak Perks and ultra-low overnight rates available to consumers, which will provide families a $75 financial incentive this year in exchange for lowering their energy use at peak times during the summer,” said Todd Smith, Minister of Energy. “The new programs launched today will also help meet the province’s emerging electricity system needs by providing annual electricity savings equivalent to powering approximately 130,000 homes every year and, alongside electricity cost allocation discussions, reduce costs for consumers by over $650 million by 2025.”

The new Peak Perks program provides a financial incentive for residential customers who are willing to conserve energy and reduce their air conditioning at peak times and have an eligible smart thermostat connected to a central air conditioning system or heat pump unit. Participants will receive $75 for enrolling this year, as well as $20 for each year they stay enrolled in the program starting in 2024.

Residential customers can participate in Peak Perks by enrolling and giving their thermostat manufacturer secure access to their thermostat. Participants will be notified when one of the maximum 10 annual temperature change events occurs directly by their thermostat manufacturer on their mobile app and on their thermostat. Peak Perks has been designed to ensure participants are always in control and customers can opt-out of any temperature change event without impacting their incentive.

The Peak Perks program will be available starting in June. Interested customers can visit SaveOnEnergy.ca/PeakPerks today to sign-up for the program waitlist and receive an email notice with information on how to enroll.

In addition to the financial incentive provided by Peak Perks, reducing electricity use during peak demand hours in the summer months helps customers to lower their monthly electricity bills, and measures such as a temporary off-peak rate freeze have complemented these efforts, as these periods tend to be associated with the highest costs for power. Lowering demand during peak periods also allows the province to reduce electricity sector emissions, by reducing the need for electricity generation facilities that only run at times of peak demand such as natural gas.

Ontario has also launched three new and enhanced programs, including an expanded custom Retrofit program for business, municipalities and other institutions, and industrial electricity rate relief initiatives, targeted support for greenhouse growers in Southwest Ontario, as well enhancements to the existing Local Initiatives Program. The expanded Retrofit program alone will feature over $200 million in dedicated funding to support the new custom energy-efficiency retrofit project stream, that will cover up to 50 percent of the cost of approved projects.

These new and expanded energy-efficiency programs are expected to have a strong impact in Southwest Ontario, with regional peak demand savings of 225 megawatts (MW). This, together with the Ontario-Quebec energy swap agreement, will provide additional capacity for the region and support growing economic development. The overall savings from this energy-efficiency programming will result in an estimated three million tonnes of greenhouse gas emission reductions over its lifetime - the equivalent to taking more than 600,000 vehicles off the road for one year.

“Thanks to energy efficiency efforts over the past 15 years, demand for electricity is today about 12 per cent lower than it otherwise would be,” said Lesley Gallinger, President and CEO, of the Independent Electricity System Operator, Ontario’s grid operator and provider of Save on Energy programs to home and business consumers. “Conservation is a valuable and cost-effective resource that supports system reliability and helps drive economic development as we strive towards compliance with clean electricity regulations for a decarbonized electricity grid.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

UK Renewables Surpass Nuclear Milestone as wind farms and solar panels outpace atomic output, cutting greenhouse gas emissions. BEIS data show low-carbon power generation rising while onshore wind subsidies and auction timelines face policy debate.

Key Points

It is the quarter when UK wind and solar generated more electricity than nuclear, signaling cleaner, low-carbon growth.

✅ BEIS reports wind and solar at 18.33 TWh vs nuclear 16.69 TWh

✅ Energy sector emissions fell 8% as coal use dropped

✅ Calls grow to reopen onshore wind support via CFD auctions

Wind farms and solar panels, with wind leading the power mix during key periods, produced more electricity than the UK’s eight nuclear power stations for the first time at the end of last year, official figures show.

Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions also continued to fall, dropping 3% in 2017, as coal use fell and the use of renewables climbed, though low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 according to later data.

Energy experienced the biggest drop in emissions of any UK sector, of 8%, while pollution from transport and businesses stayed flat.

Energy industry chiefs said the figures showed that the government should rethink its ban on onshore wind subsidies, a move that ministers have hinted could happen soon.

Lawrence Slade, chief executive of the big six lobby group Energy UK, said: “We need to keep up the pace ... by ensuring that the lowest cost renewables are no longer excluded from the market.”

Across the whole year, low-carbon sources of power – wind, solar, biomass and nuclear – provided a record 50.4% of electricity, up from 45.7% in 2016, when wind beat coal for the first time.

But in the fourth quarter of 2017, high wind speeds, new renewables installations and lower nuclear output saw wind and solar becoming the second biggest source of power for the first time.

Wind and solar generated 18.33 terawatt hours (TWh), with nuclear on 16.69TWh, and the UK later set a new record for wind power during 2019, the figures published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show.

But renewables still have a long way to go to catch up with gas, the UK’s top source of electricity at 36.12TWh, which saw its share of generation fall slightly, though at times wind became the main source as capacity expanded.

Greenpeace said the figures showed the government should capitalise on its lead in renewables and “stop wasting time and money propping up nuclear power”.

Horizon Nuclear Power, a subsidiary of the Japanese conglomerate Hitachi, is in talks with Whitehall officials for a financial support package from the government, which it says it needs by midsummer.

By contrast, large-scale solar and onshore wind projects are not eligible for support, after the Conservative government cut subsidies in 2015.

However the energy minister, Claire Perry, recently told House Magazine that “we will have another auction that brings forward wind and solar, we just haven’t yet said when”.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News