Detroit Electric resurrected

New England Solar Interconnection Costs highlight distributed generation strains, transmission charges, distribution upgrades, and DAF fees as National Grid maps hosting capacity, driving queue delays and FERC disputes in Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

Key Points

Rising upfront grid upgrade and DAF charges for distributed solar in RI and MA, including some transmission costs.

✅ Upfront grid upgrades shifted to project developers

✅ DAF and transmission charges increase per MW costs

✅ Queue delays tied to hosting capacity and cluster studies

Solar developers in Rhode Island and Massachusetts say soaring charges to interconnect with the electric grid are threatening the viability of projects. 

As more large-scale solar projects line up for connections, developers are being charged upfront for the full cost of the infrastructure upgrades required, a long-common practice that they say is now becoming untenable amid debates over a new solar customer charge in Nova Scotia. 

“It is a huge issue that reflects an under-invested grid that is not ready for the volume of distributed generation that we’re seeing and that we need, particularly solar,” said Jeremy McDiarmid, vice president for policy and government affairs at the Northeast Clean Energy Council, a nonprofit business organization. 

Connecting solar and wind systems to the grid often requires upgrades to the distribution system to prevent problems, such as voltage fluctuations and reliability risks highlighted by Australian distributors in their networks. Costs can vary considerably from place to place, depending on the amount of distributed generation coming online and the level of capacity planning by regulators, said David Feldman, a senior financial analyst at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

“Certainly the Northeast often has more distribution challenges than much of the rest of the country just because it’s more populous and often the infrastructure is older,” he said. “But it’s not unique to the Northeast — in the Midwest, for example, there’s a significant amount of wind projects in the queues and significant delays.”

In Rhode Island and Massachusetts, where strong incentive programs are driving solar development, the level of solar coming online is “exposing the under-investment in the distribution system that is causing these massive costs that National Grid is assigning to particular projects or particular groups of projects,” McDiarmid said. “It is going to be a limiting factor for how much clean energy we can develop and bring online.”

Frank Epps, chief executive officer at Energy Development Partners, has been developing solar projects in Rhode Island since 2010. In that time, he said, interconnection charges on his projects have grown from about $80,000-$120,000 per megawatt to more than $400,000 per megawatt. He attributed the increase to a lack of investment in the distribution network by National Grid over the last decade.

He and other developers say the utility is now adding further to their costs by passing along not just the cost of improving the distribution system — the equivalent of the city street of the grid that brings power directly to customers — but also costs for modifying the transmission system — the interstate highway that moves bulk power over long distances to substations. 

Solar developers who are only requesting to hook into the distribution system, and not applying for transmission service, say they should not be charged for those additional upgrades under state interconnection rules unless they are properly authorized under the federal law that governs the transmission system. 

A Rhode Island solar and wind developer filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in February over transmission system improvement charges for its four proposed solar projects. Green Development said National Grid subsidiaries Narragansett Electric and New England Power Company want to charge the company more than $500,000 a year in operating and maintenance expenses assessed as so-called direct assignment facility charges. 

“This amount nearly doubles the interconnection costs associated with the projects,” which total 38.4 megawatts in North Smithfield, the company says in its complaint. “Crucially, these charges are linked to recovering costs associated with providing transmission service — even though no such transmission service is being provided to Green Development.”

But Ted Kresse, a spokesperson for National Grid, said the direct assignment facility, or DAF, construct has been in place for decades and has been applied to any customer affecting the need for transmission upgrades.

“It is the result of the high penetration and continued high volume of distributed generation interconnections that has recently prompted the need for transmission upgrades, and subsequently the pass-through of the associated DAF charges,” he said. 

Several complaints before the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission object to these DAF and other transmission charges.

One petition for dispute resolution concerns four solar projects totaling 40 MW being developed by Energy Development Partners in a former gravel pit in North Kingstown. Brown University has agreed to purchase the power. 

The developer signed interconnection service agreements with Narragansett Electric in 2019 requiring payment of $21.6 million for costs associated with connecting the projects at a new Wickford Junction substation. Last summer, Narragansett sought to replace those agreements with new ones that reclassified a portion of the costs as transmission-level costs, through New England Power, National Grid’s transmission subsidiary.

That shift would result in additional operational and maintenance charges of $835,000 per year for the estimated 35-year life of the projects, the complaint says.

“This came as a complete shock to us,” Epps said. “We’re not just paying for the maintenance of a new substation. We are paying a share of the total cost that the system owner has to own and operate the transmission system. So all of the sudden, it makes it even tougher for distributed energy resources to be viable.”

In its response to the petition, National Grid argues that the charges are justified because the solar projects will require transmission-level upgrades at the new substation. The company argues that the developer should be responsible for the costs rather than ratepayers, “who are already supporting renewable energy development through their electric rates.”

Seth Handy, one of the lawyers representing Green Development in the FERC complaint, argues that putting transmission system costs on distribution assets is unfair because the distributed resources are “actually reducing the need to move electricity long distances. We’ve been fighting these fights a long time over the underestimating of the value of distributed energy in reducing system costs.”

Handy is also representing the Episcopal Diocese of Rhode Island before the state Supreme Court in its appeal of an April 2020 public utilities commission order upholding similar charges for a proposed 2.2-megawatt solar project at the diocese’s conference center and camp in Glocester. 

Todd Bianco, principal policy associate at the utilities commission, said neither he nor the chairperson can comment on the pending dockets contesting these charges. But he noted that some of these issues are under discussion in another docket examining National Grid’s standards for connecting distributed generation. Among the proposals being considered is the appointment of an independent ombudsperson to resolve interconnection disputes. 

Separately, legislation pending before the Rhode Island General Assembly would remove responsibility for administering the interconnection of renewable energy from utilities, and put it under the authority of the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank, a financing agency.

Handy, who recently testified in support of the bill, said he believes National Grid has too many conflicting interests to administer interconnecting charges in a timely, transparent and fair fashion, and pointed to utility moves such as changes to solar compensation in other states as examples. In particular, he noted the company’s interests in expanding natural gas infrastructure. 

“There are all kinds of economic interests that they have that conflict with our state policy to provide lower-cost renewable energy and more secure energy solutions,” Handy said.

In testimony submitted to the House Committee on Corporations opposing the legislation, National Grid said such powers are well beyond the purpose and scope of the infrastructure bank. And it cited figures showing Rhode Island is third in the country for the most installed solar per square mile (behind New Jersey and Massachusetts).

Nadav Enbar, program manager at the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit research organization for the utility industry, said interconnection delays and higher costs are becoming more common due to “the incredible uptake” in distributed renewable energy, particularly solar.

That’s impacting hosting capacity, the room available to connect all resources to a circuit without causing adverse harm to reliability and safety. 

“As hosting capacity is being reduced, it’s causing an increasing number of situations where utilities need to study their systems to guarantee interconnection without compromising their systems,” he said. “And that is the reason why you’re starting to see some delays, and it has translated into some greater costs because of the need for upgrades to infrastructure.”

The cost depends on the age or absence of infrastructure, projected load growth, the number of renewable energy projects in the queue, and other factors, he said. As utilities come under increasing pressure to meet state renewable goals, and as some states pilot incentives like a distributed energy rebate in Illinois to drive utility innovation, some (including National Grid) are beginning to provide hosting capacity maps that provide detailed information to developers and policymakers about the amount of distributed energy that can be accommodated at various locations on the grid, he said. 

In addition, the coming availability of high-tech “smart inverters” should help ease some of these problems because they provide the grid with more flexibility when it comes to connecting and communicating with distributed energy resources, Enbar said. 

In Massachusetts, the Department of Public Utilities has opened a docket to explore ways to better plan for and share the cost of upgrading distribution infrastructure to accommodate solar and other renewable energy sources as part of a grid overhaul for renewables nationwide. National Grid has been conducting “cluster studies” there that attempt to analyze the transmission impacts of a group of solar projects and the corresponding interconnection cost to each developer.

Kresse, of National Grid, said the company favors cost-sharing methodologies under consideration that would “provide a pathway to spread cost over the total enabled capacity from the upgrade, as opposed to spreading the cost over only those customers in the queue today.” 

Solar developers want regulators to take an even broader approach that factors in how the deployment of renewables and the resulting infrastructure upgrades benefit not just the interconnecting generator, but all customers. 

“Right now, if your project is the one that causes a multimillion-dollar upgrade, you are assigned that cost even though that upgrade is going to benefit a lot of other projects, as well as make the grid stronger,” said McDiarmid, of the clean energy council. “What we’re asking for is a way of allocating those costs among a variety of developers, as well as to the grid itself, meaning ratepayers. There’s a societal benefit to increasing the modernization of the grid, and improving the resilience of the grid.”

In the meantime, BlueHub Capital, a Boston-based solar developer focused on serving affordable housing developments, recently learned from National Grid that, as a part of one of the area studies, it will be required to pay $5.8 million in transmission and distribution upgrades to interconnect a 2-megawatt solar-plus-storage project that leverages cheaper batteries to enhance resilience, approved for a brownfield site in Gardner, Massachusetts. 

According to testimony submitted to the department, the sum is supposed to be paid within the next year, even though the project will have to wait to be interconnected until April 2027, when a new transmission line is completed. In addition, BlueHub will be responsible for DAF charges totaling $3.4 million over the 20-year life of the project. 

“We’re being asked to pay a fortune to provide solar that the state wants,” said DeWitt Jones, BlueHub’s president. “It’s so expensive that the upgrades are driving everyone out of the interconnection queue. The costs stay the same, but they fall on fewer projects. We need a process of grid design and modernization to guide this.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

South Carolina Energy Freedom Act lifts net metering caps, reforms PURPA, and overhauls utility planning to boost solar competition, grid resiliency, and consumer choice across the Southeast amid Santee Cooper debt and utility monopoly pressure.

Key Points

A bipartisan reform lifting net metering caps, modernizing PURPA, and updating utility planning to expand solar.

✅ Lifts net metering cap to accelerate rooftop and community solar.

✅ Reforms PURPA contracts to enable fair pricing and transparent procurement.

✅ Modernizes utility IRP and opens markets to competition and customer choice.

The South Carolina House has approved the latest version of the Energy Freedom Act, a bill that overhauls the state’s electricity policies, including lifting the net metering caps and reforming PURPA implementation and utility planning processes in a way that advocates say levels the playing field for solar at all scales.

With Governor Henry McMaster (R) expected to sign the bill shortly, this is a major coup not just for solar in the state, but the region. This is particularly notable given the struggle that solar has had just to gain footing in many parts of the South, which is dominated by powerful utility monopolies and conservative politicians.

Two days ago when the bill passed the Senate we covered the details of the policy, but today we’re going to take a look at the politics of getting the Energy Freedom Act passed, and what this means for other Southern states and “red” states.

Opportunity amid crisis

The first thing to note about this bill is that it comes within a crisis in South Carolina’s electricity sector. This was the first legislative session following state-run utility Santee Cooper’s formal abandonment of a project to build two new reactors at the Virgil C. Sumner nuclear power plant, on which work stopped nearly two years ago.

Santee Cooper still holds $4 billion in construction debt related to the nuclear projects. According to an article in The State, this is costing its customers $5 per month toward the current debt, and this will rise to $13 per month for the next 40 years.

Such costs are particularly unwelcome in South Carolina, which has the highest annual electricity bills in the nation due to a combination of very high electricity usage driven by widespread air conditioning during the hot summers and higher prices per unit of power than other Southern states.

Following this fiasco, Santee Cooper’s CEO has stepped down, and the state government is currently considering selling the utility to a private entity. According to Maggie Clark, southeast state affairs senior manager for Solar Energy Industries Association, all of this set the stage for the bill that passed today.

“South Carolina is in a really ripe state for transformational energy policy in the wake of the VC Sumner nuclear plant cancellation,” Clark told pv magazine. “They were looking for a way forward, and I think this bill really provided them something to champion.”

Renewable energy policy for red states

This major win for solar policy comes in a state where the Republican Party holds majorities in both houses of the state’s legislature and sends bills to a Republican governor.

Broadly speaking, Republican politicians seldom show the level of interest in supporting renewable energy that Democrats do either at the state or national level, and show even less inclination to act to address greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the 100% clean energy mandates that are being implemented in four states and Washington D.C. have only passed with Democratic trifectas, in other words with Republicans controlling neither house of the state legislature nor the governor’s office. (Note: This does not apply to Puerto Rico, which has a different party structure to the rest of the United States)

However, South Carolina shows there are Republican politicians who will support pro-renewable energy policies, and circumstances under which Republican majorities will vote for legislation that aids the adoption of solar. And these specific circumstances speak to both different priorities and ideological differences between the two parties.

SEIA’s Maggie Clark emphasizes that the Energy Freedom Act was about reforming market rules. “This was a way to provide a program that did not provide subsidies or incentives in any way, but to really open the market to competition,” explains Clark. “I think that appealing to conservatives in the South about energy independence and resiliency and ultimately cost savings is the winning message on this issue.”

Such messaging in South Carolina is not an accident. Not only has such messaging been successful in the past, but coalition partner Vote Solar paid for polling to find what messages resounded with the state’s voters, and found that choice and competition were likely to resound.

And all of this happened in the context of what Clark describes as an “extremely well-resourced effort”, with SEIA in particular dedicating national attention and resources to the state – as part of an effort by President and CEO Abigail Hopper to shift attention more towards state-level policy. Maggie Clark is one of two new regional staff who Hopper has hired, and SEIA’s first staff member focused on Southern states.

“Absolutely the South is a prioritized region,” Hopper told pv magazine, noting that three Southern states – the Carolinas and Florida – are among the 12 states that the organization has identified to work on this year. “It became clear that as a region it needed more attention.”

SEIA is not expecting fly-by-night victories, and Hopper attributes the success in South Carolina not only to a broad coalition, but to years of work on the ground in the state.

Nor is SEIA the only organization to grow its presence in the region. Vote Solar now has two full time staff located in the South, whereas two years ago its sole staff member dedicated to the region was located in Washington D.C.

Ideology versus reality in the South

The Energy Freedom Act aligns with conservative ideas about small government and competition, but the American right is not monolithic, nor do political ideas and actions always line up neatly, as other successful policies in other states in the region show

By far the largest deployment of renewable energy in the nation has been in Texas, aside from in California which leads overall. Here a system of renewable energy zones in the sparsely populated but windy and sunny west, north and center of the state feed cities to the east with power from wind and more recently solar.

This was enabled by transmission lines whose cost was socialized among the state’s ratepayers – a tremendous irony given that the state’s politicians would be some of the last in the nation to want to be identified with socializing anything.

Another example is Louisiana, which saw a healthy residential solar market over the last decade due to a 50% state rebate. The policy has expired, but when operating it was exactly the sort of outright subsidy that right-wing media and politicians rail against.

Of course there is also North Carolina, which built the 2nd-largest solar market in the nation on the back of successful state-level implementation of PURPA, a federal law. Finally there is Virginia, where large-scale projects are booming following a 2018 law that found that 5 GW of solar is in the public interest.

Furthermore, while conservatives continually expound the virtues of the free market, the reality of the electricity sector in the “deep red” South is anything but that. The region missed out on the wave of deregulation in the 1990s, and remains dominated by monopoly utilities regulated by the state: a union of big business and big government where competition is non-existent.

This has also meant that the solar which has been deployed in the South is mostly not the kind of rooftop solar that many think of as embodying energy independence, but rather large-scale solar built in farms, fields and forests.

Where to from here?

With such contradictions between stated ideology and practice, it is less clear what makes for successful renewable energy policy in the South. However, opening up markets appears to be working not only in South Carolina, but also in Florida, where third-party solar companies are making inroads after the state’s voters rejected a well-funded and duplicitous utilities’ campaign to kill distributed solar.

SEIA’s Hopper says that she is “aggressively optimistic” about solar in Florida. As utilities have dominated large-solar deployment in the state, even as the state declined federal solar incentives earlier this year, she says that she sees opening up the state’s booming utility-scale solar market to competition as a priority.

Some parts of the region may be harder than others, and it is notable that SEIA has not had as much to say about Alabama, Mississippi or Louisiana, which are largely controlled by utility giants Southern Company and Entergy, or the area under the thumb of the Tennessee Valley Authority, one of the most anti-solar entities in the power sector.

Abby Hopper says ultimately, demand from customers – both individuals and corporations – is the key to transforming policy. “You replicate these victories by customer demand,” Hopper told pv magazine. “That combination of voices from the customer are what’s going to drive change.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

American Green Energy Independence accelerates electrification and renewable energy, leveraging solar, wind, and EVs to boost energy security, cut emissions, create jobs, and reduce reliance on volatile oil and natural gas markets influenced by geopolitics.

Key Points

American Green Energy Independence is a strategy to electrify, expand renewables, and enhance energy security.

✅ Electrifies vehicles, appliances, and infrastructure

✅ Expands solar, wind, and storage to stabilize grids

✅ Cuts oil dependence, strengthens energy security and jobs

As Putin's heavy hand uses Russia's power over oil and natural gas as a weapon against Europe, which is facing an energy nightmare across its markets, and the people of Ukraine, it's impossible not to wonder how we can mitigate the damages he's causing. Simultaneously, it's a devastating reminder of the freedom we so often take for granted and a warning to increase our energy independence as a nation. There are many ways we can, but one of the best is to follow the lead of the European Union and quicken our transition to green and renewable energies.

We've known it for a long time: our reliance on fossil fuels is a national security risk. Volatile prices coupled with our extreme demand mean that concerns over fossil fuel access have driven foreign policy decisions. We've seen it happen countless times — most notably during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — and it's played out again in Ukraine, which has leaned on imports to keep the lights on during the crisis. Concerned by Russia's power over the oil and natural gas market, the US and Europe were quite reluctant to impose the harshest, most recent sanctions because doing so will hurt their citizens' pocketbooks.

As homeowners, we know how much decisions like these can hurt, especially with gas prices being historically high even as an energy crisis isn't spurring a green shift for many consumers. However, the solution to this problem isn't to drill more, as some well-funded oil and gas interest groups have claimed. Doing so likely won't even provide a short-term solution to the problem as it takes six months to a year at minimum to build a new well with all its associated infrastructure.

The best long-term solution is to declare our independence from the global oil market amid a global energy war that is driving price hikes and invest in American-made clean energy. We need to electrify our vehicles, appliances, and infrastructure, and make America fully energy independent. This will save families thousands of dollars a year, make our country more self-sufficient, and provide hundreds of thousands of quality jobs here in the Midwest.

Already, over 600,000 Midwesterners are employed in clean-energy professions, and they make 25 percent more than the national median wage. Nationally, clean energy is the biggest job creator in our country's energy sector, employing almost three times as many workers as the fossil fuel industry.

As we employ our own citizens, we will defund Putin's Russia, which has long been funded by his powerful oil and gas industry. Instead of diversifying his economy during the oil boom of the 2010s, Putin doubled down on petroleum. We should exploit his weakness by leading a global movement to abandon the very resource that funds his warmongering. Doing so will further destabilize his economy and protect the citizens of Ukraine, especially as they prepare for winter amid energy challenges today.

We can start doing this as everyday consumers by seeking electric options like stoves, cars, or other appliances. Congress should help Americans afford these changes by providing tax credits for everyday Americans and innovators in electric vehicle and green energy industries. Doing so will spur innovation in the industry, further reducing the cost to consumers. We should also ensure that our semiconductors, solar panels, wind turbines, and other technology needed for a green future are manufactured and assembled in America. This will ensure that our energy industry is safe from price or supply shocks and reduce brownout risks linked to disruptions caused by an international crisis like the invasion of Ukraine.

In many ways, our next steps as a country can define world history for generations to come. Will we continue our reliance on oil and its tacit support of Putin's economy? Or will we intensify our shift to green energies and make our country more self-sufficient and secure? The global spotlight is on us once again to lead. We hope our country will honor the lives of its veterans and the soldiers fighting in Ukraine by strengthening energy security support and transitioning towards green energy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Biofuels vs EV Subsidies examines tradeoffs in decarbonization, greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy deployment, charging infrastructure, energy security, lifecycle emissions, and transportation sector policy to meet climate goals and accelerate sustainable mobility.

Key Points

Policy tradeoffs weighing biofuels and EVs to cut GHGs, boost energy security, and advance clean transportation.

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

California is at the forefront of the transition to a greener economy, driven by its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. As part of its strategy, the state is grappling with the question of whether it should subsidize out-of-state biofuels or in-state electric vehicles (EVs) to meet these goals. Both options come with their own sets of benefits and challenges, and the decision carries significant implications for the state’s environmental, economic, and energy landscapes.

The Case for Biofuels

Biofuels have long been promoted as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. They are made from organic materials such as agricultural crops, algae, and waste, which means they can potentially reduce carbon emissions in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. In the context of California, biofuels—particularly ethanol and biodiesel—are viewed as a way to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is one of the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsidizing out-of-state biofuels can help California reduce its reliance on imported oil while promoting the development of biofuel industries in other states. This approach may have immediate benefits, as biofuels are widely available and can be blended with conventional fuels to lower carbon emissions right away. It also allows the state to diversify its energy sources, improving energy security by reducing dependency on oil imports.

Moreover, biofuels can be produced in many regions across the United States, including rural areas. By subsidizing out-of-state biofuels, California could foster economic development in these regions, creating jobs and stimulating agricultural innovation. This approach could also support farmers who grow the feedstock for biofuel production, boosting the agricultural economy in the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks. The environmental benefits of biofuels are often debated. Critics argue that the production of biofuels—particularly those made from food crops like corn—can contribute to deforestation, water pollution, and increased food prices. Additionally, biofuels are not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, as their production and combustion still release greenhouse gases. When considering whether to subsidize biofuels, California must also account for the full lifecycle emissions associated with their production and use.

The Case for Electric Vehicles

In contrast to biofuels, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a more direct pathway to reducing emissions from transportation. EVs are powered by electricity, and when coupled with renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, they can provide a nearly zero-emission solution for personal and commercial transportation. California has already invested heavily in EV infrastructure, including expanding its network of charging stations and exploring how EVs can support grid stability through vehicle-to-grid approaches, and offering incentives for consumers to purchase EVs.

Subsidizing in-state EVs could stimulate job creation and innovation within California's thriving clean-tech industry, with other states such as New Mexico projecting substantial economic gains from transportation electrification, and the state has already become a hub for electric vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla, Rivian, and several battery manufacturers. Supporting the EV industry could further strengthen California’s position as a global leader in green technology, attracting investment and fostering growth in related sectors such as battery manufacturing, renewable energy, and smart grid technology.

Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are substantial. As the electric grid becomes cleaner with an increasing share of renewable energy, EVs will become even greener, with lower lifecycle emissions than biofuels. By prioritizing EVs, California could further reduce its carbon footprint while also achieving its long-term climate goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

However, there are challenges. EV adoption in California remains a significant undertaking, requiring major investments in infrastructure as they challenge state power grids in the near term, technology, and consumer incentives. The cost of EVs, although decreasing, still remains a barrier for many consumers. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is essential for EV batteries. While renewable energy is expanding, California’s grid is still reliant on fossil fuels to some degree, and in other jurisdictions such as Canada's 2019 electricity mix fossil generation remains significant, meaning that the full emissions benefit of EVs is not realized until the grid is entirely powered by clean energy.

A Balancing Act

The debate between subsidizing out-of-state biofuels and in-state electric vehicles is ultimately a question of how best to allocate California’s resources to meet its climate and economic goals. Biofuels may offer a quicker fix for reducing emissions from existing vehicles, but their long-term benefits are more limited compared to the transformative potential of electric vehicles, even as some analysts warn of policy pitfalls that could complicate the transition.

However, biofuels still have a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy-duty transportation, where electrification may not be as feasible in the near future. Thus, a mixed strategy that includes both subsidies for EVs and biofuels may be the most effective approach.

Ultimately, California’s decision will likely depend on a combination of factors, including technological advancements, 2021 electricity lessons, and the pace of renewable energy deployment, and the state’s ability to balance short-term needs with long-term environmental goals. The road ahead is not easy, but California's leadership in clean energy will be crucial in shaping the nation’s response to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Bruce Power PPE Donation supports Canada COVID-19 response, supplying 1.2 million masks, gloves, and gowns to Ontario hospitals, long-term care, and first responders, plus face shields, hand sanitizer, and funding for testing and food banks.

Key Points

Bruce Power PPE Donation is a broad COVID-19 aid delivering PPE, supplies, and funding across Ontario.

✅ 1.2 million masks, gloves, gowns to Ontario care providers

✅ 3-D printed face shields and 50,000 bottles of sanitizer

✅ Funding testing research and supporting regional food banks

The world’s largest nuclear plant, which recently marked an operating record during sustained operations, just made Canada’s largest donation of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Bruce Power is doubling its initial donation of 600,000 masks, gloves and gowns for front-line health workers, to 1.2 million pieces of PPE.

The company, which operates the Bruce Nuclear station near Kincardine, Ont., where a major reactor refurbishment is underway, plans to have the equipment in the hands of hospitals, long-term care homes and first responders by the end of April.

It’s not the only thing Bruce Power is doing to help out Ontario during the COVID-19 pandemic:

 Bruce Power has donated $300,000 to 37 food banks in Midwestern Ontario, highlighting the broader economic benefits of Canadian nuclear projects for communities.

•  They’re also working with NPX in Kincardine to make face shields with 3-D printers, leveraging local manufacturing contracts to accelerate production.
•  They’re teaming up with the Power Worker’s Union to fund testing research in Toronto.
•  They’re working with Three Sheets Brewing and Junction 56 Distillery to distribute 50,000 bottles of hand sanitizer to those that need it.

And that’s all on top of what they’ve been doing for years, producing Cobalt-60, a medical isotope to sterilize medical equipment, and, after a recent output upgrade at the site, producing about 30 per cent of Ontario’s electricity as the province advances the Pickering B refurbishment to bolster grid reliability.

Bruce Power has over 4,000 employees working out of their nuclear plant, on the shores of Lake Huron, as it explores the proposed Bruce C project for potential future capacity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hydro One CEO Salary shapes debate on Ontario electricity costs, executive compensation, sunshine list transparency, and public disclosure rules, as officials argue pay is not driving planned hydro rate cuts for consumers.

Key Points

Hydro One CEO pay disclosed in public filings, central to debates on Ontario electricity rates and transparency.

✅ 2016 compensation: $4.5M (salary + bonuses)

✅ Excluded from Ontario's sunshine list after privatization

✅ Government says pay won't affect planned hydro rate cuts

The $4.5 million in pay received by Hydro One's CEO is not a factor in the government's plan to cut electricity costs for consumers, an Ontario cabinet minister said Thursday amid opposition concerns about the executive's compensation and wider sector pressures such as Manitoba Hydro's rising debt in other provinces.

Treasury Board President Liz Sandals made her comments on the eve of the release of the province's so-called sunshine list.

The annual disclosure of public-sector salaries over $100,000 will be released Friday, but Hydro One salaries such as that of company boss Mayo Schmidt won't be on it.Though the government still owns most of Hydro One — 30 per cent has been sold — the company is required to follow the financial disclosure rules of publicly traded companies, which means disclosing the salaries of its CEO, CFO and next three highest-paid executives, and financial results such as a Q2 profit decline in filings.

New filings show that Schmidt was paid $4.5 million in 2016 — an $850,000 salary plus bonuses — and those top five executives were paid a total of about $11.7 million. 

"Clearly that's a very large amount," said Sandals. Sandals wouldn't say whether or not she thought the pay was appropriate at a time when the government is trying to reduce system costs and cut people's hydro bills.

Mayo Schmidt, President & CEO of Hydro One Limited and Hydro One Inc. (Hydro One )

But she suggested the CEO's salary was not a factor in efforts to bring down hydro prices, even as Hydro One shares fell after a leadership shakeup in a later period. "The CEO salary is not part of the equation of will 'we be able to make the cut,"' she said. "Regardless of what those salaries are, we will make a 25-per-cent-off cut." The cut coming this summer is actually an average of 17 per cent -- the 25-per-cent figure factors in an earlier eight-per-cent rebate.

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath, who has proposed to make hydro public again in Ontario, said the executive salaries are relevant to cutting hydro costs.

"All of this is cost of operating the electricity system, it's part of the operating of Hydro One and so of course those increased salaries are going to impact the cost of our electricity," she said.

Schmidt was appointed Aug. 31, 2015, and in the last four months of that year earned $1.3 million, but the former CEO was paid $745,000 in 2014. About 3,800 workers were paid over $100,000 that year, none of whom will be on the sunshine list this year.

Progressive Conservative energy critic Todd Smith has a private member's bill that would put Hydro One salaries back on the list, amid investor concerns about Hydro One that cite too many unknowns.

"The Wynne Liberals don't want the people of Ontario to know that their rates have helped create a new millionaire's club at Hydro One," Smith said. "Hydro One is still under the majority ownership of the public, but Premier Kathleen Wynne has removed these salaries from the public's watchful eye."

The previous sunshine list showed 115,431 people were earning more than $100,000 — an increase of nearly 4,000 people despite the fact 3,774 Hydro One workers were not on the list for the first time.

Tom Mitchell, the former CEO at Ontario Power Generation who resigned last summer, topped the 2015 list at $1.59 million.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News