Using Africa as a back door for carbon credits

Alberta Electricity Price Hikes spotlight grid reliability, renewable transition, coal phase-out, and energy poverty, as policy shifts and investor reports warn of rate increases, biomass trade-offs, and sustainability challenges impacting households and businesses.

Key Points

Projected power bill hikes from market reforms, renewables, coal phase-out, and reliability costs in Alberta.

✅ Investor report projects 3x-7x bills and $50B market transition costs

✅ Policy missteps cited in Ontario, Germany, Australia price spikes

✅ Debate: retain coal vs. speed renewables, storage, and grid upgrades

Since when did electricity become a scarce resource?

I thought all the talk about greening the grid was about having renewable, sustainable, less polluting options to fulfill our growing need for power. Yet, increasingly, we are faced with news stories that indicate using power is bad in and of itself, even as flat electricity demand worries utilities.

The implication, I guess, is that we should be using less of it. But, I don’t want to use less electricity. I want to be able to watch TV, turn my lights on when the sun sets at 4 p.m. in the winter, keep my food cold and power my devices.

We once had a consensus that a reliable supply of power was essential to a growing economy and a high quality of life, a point underscored by brownout risks in U.S. markets.

I’m beginning to wonder if we still have that consensus.

And more importantly, if our decision makers have determined electricity is a vice as opposed to an essential of life – as debates over Alberta electricity policy suggest – you know what is going to happen next. Prices are going to rise, forcing all of us to use less.

How much would it hurt your bottom line if your electricity bill went up three-fold? How about seven-fold? That is the grim picture that Todd Beasley painted for us on Tuesday’s show.

Last week, he launched a campaign on behalf of Albertans for Sustainable Electricity, called Stop the Shock. He shared the results of an internal investor report that concluded Alberta’s power market overhaul would cost an estimated $50 billion to implement and could result in a three to seven-fold increase in electricity bills.

Now, my typical power bill averages $70 a month. That would be like having it grow to $210 a month, or just over $2,500 a year. If it’s a seven-fold increase that would be more like $5,000 a year. That may be manageable for some families, but I can think of a lot of things I’d rather do with $5,000 than pay more to keep my fridge running so my food doesn’t spoil.

For low-income families that would be a real hardship.

Beasley said Ontario’s inept handling of its electricity market and the phase-out of coal power resulted in price spikes that left more than 70,000 individuals facing energy poverty.

Germany and Australia realized they made the same mistake and are returning some electricity to coal.

Beasley shared a long list of Canadian firms – including our own Canadian Pension Plan – that are investing in coal development around the world. Meanwhile, Canadian governments remain in a mad rush to phase it out here. That’s not the only hypocrisy.

Rupert Darwall, author of Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex, revealed in a recent column what he calls “the scandal at the heart of the EU’s renewable policies.”

Turns out most of their expansion in renewable energy has come from biomass in the form of wood. Not only does burning wood produce more CO2, it also eliminates carbon sinks.

To meet the EU’s 2030 target would require cutting down trees equivalent to the combined harvest in Canada and the United States. As he puts it, “Whichever way you look at it, burning the world’s carbon sinks to meet the EU’s arbitrary renewable energy targets is environmentally insane.”

Beasley’s group is trying to bring some sanity back to the discussion. The goal should be to move to a greener grid while maintaining abundant, reliable and cheap power, and examples like Texas grid improvements show practical steps. He thinks to achieve all these goals, coal should remain part of the mix. What do you think?

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Smart EV Charging orchestrates vehicle-to-grid (V2G), demand response, and fast charging to balance the power grid, integrating renewables, electrolyzers for hydrogen, and megawatt chargers for fleets with advanced control and co-optimization.

Key Points

Smart EV charging coordinates EV load to stabilize the grid, cut peaks, and integrate renewable energy efficiently.

✅ Reduces peak demand via coordinated, flexible load control

✅ Enables V2G services with renewables and battery storage

✅ Supports megawatt fast charging for heavy-duty fleets

As electric vehicle (EV) sales continue to rev up in the United States, the power grid is in parallel contending with the greatest transformation in its 100-year history: the large-scale integration of renewable energy and power electronic devices. The expected expansion of EVs will shift those challenges into high gear, causing cities to face gigawatt-growth in electricity demand, as analyses of EV grid impacts indicate, and higher amounts of variable energy.

Coordinating large numbers of EVs with the power system presents a highly complex challenge. EVs introduce variable electrical loads that are highly dependent on customer behavior. Electrified transportation involves co-optimization with other energy systems, like natural gas and bulk battery storage, including mobile energy storage flexibility for new operational options. It could involve fleets of automated ride-hailing EVs and lead to hybrid-energy truck stops that provide hydrogen and fast-charging to heavy-duty vehicles.

Those changes will all test the limits of grid integration, but the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) sees opportunity at the intersection of energy systems and transportation. With powerful resources for simulating and evaluating complex systems, several NREL projects are determining the coordination required for fast charging, balancing electrical supply and demand, and efficient use of all energy assets.

Smart and Not-So-Smart Control
To appreciate the value of coordinated EV charging, it is helpful to imagine the opposite scenario.

"Our first question is how much benefit or burden the super simple, uncoordinated approach to electric vehicle charging offers the grid," said Andrew Meintz, the researcher leading NREL's Electric Vehicle Grid Integration team, as well as the RECHARGE project for smart EV charging. "Then we compare that to the 'whiz-bang,' everything-is-connected approach. We want to know the difference in value."

In the "super simple" approach, Meintz explained that battery-powered electric vehicles grow in market share, exemplified by mass-market EVs, without any evolution in vehicle charging coordination. Picture every employee at your workplace driving home at 5 p.m. and charging their vehicle. That is the grid's equivalent of going 0 to 100 mph, and if it does not wreck the system, it is at least very expensive. According to NREL's Electrification Futures Study, a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of widespread electrification across all U.S. economic sectors, in 2050 EVs could contribute to a 33% increase in energy use during peak electrical demand, underscoring state grid challenges that make these intervals costly when energy reserves are procured. In duck curve parlance, EVs will further strain the duck's neck.

The Optimization and Control Lab's Electric Vehicle Grid Integration bays allow researchers to determine how advanced high power chargers can be added safely and effectively to the grid, with the potential to explore how to combine buildings and EV charging. Credit: Dennis Schroeder, NREL
Meintz's "whiz-bang" approach instead imagines EV control strategies that are deliberate and serve to smooth, rather than intensify, the upcoming demand for electricity. It means managing both when and where vehicles charge to create flexible load on the grid.

At NREL, smart strategies to dispatch vehicles for optimal charging are being developed for both the grid edge, where consumers and energy users connect to the grid, as in RECHARGEPDF, and the entire distribution system, as in the GEMINI-XFC projectPDF. Both projects, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Vehicle Technologies Office, lean on advanced capabilities at NREL's Energy Systems Integration Facility to simulate future energy systems.

At the grid edge, EVs can be co-optimized with distributed energy resources—small-scale generation or storage technologies—the subject of a partnership with Eaton that brought industry perspectives to bear on coordinated management of EV fleets.

At the larger-system level, the GEMINI-XFC project has extended EV optimization scenarios to the city scale—the San Francisco Bay Area, to be specific.

"GEMINI-XFC involves the highest-ever-fidelity modeling of transportation and the grid," said NREL Research Manager of Grid-Connected Energy Systems Bryan Palmintier.

"We're combining future transportation scenarios with a large metro area co-simulationPDF—millions of simulated customers and a realistic distribution system model—to find the best approaches to vehicles helping the grid."

GEMINI-XFC and RECHARGE can foresee future electrification scenarios and then insert controls that reduce grid congestion or offset peak demand, for example. Charging EVs involves a sort of shell game, where loads are continually moved among charging stations to accommodate grid demand.

But for heavy-duty vehicles, the load is harder to hide. Electrified truck fleets will hit the road soon, creating power needs for electric truck fleets that translate to megawatts of localized demand. No amount of rerouting can avoid the requirements of charging heavy-duty vehicles or other instances of extreme fast-charging (XFC). To address this challenge, NREL is working with industry and other national laboratories to study and demonstrate the technological buildout necessary to achieve 1+ MW charging stationsPDF that are capable of fast charging at very high energy levels for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.

To reach such a scale, NREL is also considering new power conversion hardware based on advanced materials like wide-bandgap semiconductors, as well as new controllers and algorithms that are uniquely suited for fleets of charge-hungry vehicles. The challenge to integrate 1+ MW charging is also pushing NREL research to higher power: Upcoming capabilities will look at many-megawatt systems that tie in the support of other energy sectors.

Renewable In-Roads for Hydrogen

At NREL, the drive toward larger charging demands is being met with larger research capabilities. The announcement of ARIES opens the door to energy systems integration research at a scale 10-times greater than current capabilities: 20 MW, up from 2 MW. Critically, it presents an opportunity to understand how mobility with high energy demands can be co-optimized with other utility-scale assets to benefit grid stability.

"If you've got a grid humming along with a steady load, then a truck requires 500 kW or more of power, it could create a large disruption for the grid," said Keith Wipke, the laboratory program manager for fuel cells and hydrogen technologies at NREL.

Such a high power demand could be partially served by battery storage systems. Or it could be hidden entirely with hydrogen production. Wipke's program, with support from the DOE's Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office, has been performing studies into how electrolyzers—devices that use electricity to break water into hydrogen and oxygen—could offset the grid impacts of XFC. These efforts are also closely aligned with DOE's H2@Scale vision for affordable and effective hydrogen use across multiple sectors, including heavy-duty transportation, power generation, and metals manufacturing, among others.

"We're simulating electrolyzers that can match the charging load of heavy-duty battery electric vehicles. When fast charging begins, the electrolyzers are ramped down. When fast charging ends, the electrolyzers are ramped back up," Wipke said. "If done smoothly, the utility doesn't even know it's happening."

NREL Researchers Rishabh Jain, Kazunori Nagasawa, and Jen Kurtz are working on how grid integration of electrolyzers—devices that use electricity to break water into hydrogen and oxygen—could offset the grid impacts of extreme fast-charging. Credit: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
As electrolyzers harness the cheap electrons from off-demand periods, a significant amount of hydrogen can be produced on site. That creates a natural energy pathway from discount electricity into a fuel. It is no wonder, then, that several well-known transportation and fuel companies have recently initiated a multimillion-dollar partnership with NREL to advance heavy-duty hydrogen vehicle technologies.

"The logistics of expanding electric charging infrastructure from 50 kW for a single demonstration battery electric truck to 5,000 kW for a fleet of 100 could present challenges," Wipke said. "Hydrogen scales very nicely; you're basically bringing hydrogen to a fueling station or producing it on site, but either way the hydrogen fueling events are decoupled in time from hydrogen production, providing benefits to the grid."

The long driving range and fast refuel times—including a DOE target of achieving 10-minutes refuel for a truck—have already made hydrogen the standout solution for applications in warehouse forklifts. Further, NREL is finding that distributed electrolyzers can simultaneously produce hydrogen and improve voltage conditions, which can add much-needed stability to a grid that is accommodating more energy from variable resources.

Those examples that co-optimize mobility with the grid, using diverse technologies, are encouraging NREL and its partners to pursue a new scale of systems integration. Several forward-thinking projects are reimagining urban mobility as a mix of energy solutions that integrate the relative strengths of transportation technologies, which complement each other to fill important gaps in grid reliability.

The Future of Urban Mobility
What will electrified transportation look like at high penetrations? A few NREL projects offer some perspective. Among the most experimental, NREL is helping the city of Denver develop a smart community, integrated with electrified mobility and featuring automated charging and vehicle dispatch.

On another path to advanced mobility, Los Angeles has embarked on a plan to modernize its electricity system infrastructure, reflecting California EV grid stability goals—aiming for a 100% renewable energy supply by 2045, along with aggressive electrification targets for buildings and vehicles. Through the Los Angeles 100% Renewable Energy Study, the city is currently working with NREL to assess the full-scale impacts of the transition in a detailed analysis that integrates diverse capabilities across the laboratory.

The transition would include the Port of Long Beach, the busiest container port in the United States.

At the port, NREL is applying the same sort of scenario forecasting and controls evaluation as other projects, in order to find the optimal mix of technologies that can be integrated for both grid stability and a reliable quality of service: a mix of hydrogen fuel-cell and battery EVs, battery storage systems, on-site renewable generation, and extreme coordination among everything.

"Hydrogen at ports makes sense for the same reason as trucks: Marine applications have big power and energy demands," Wipke said. "But it's really the synergies between diverse technologies—the existing infrastructure for EVs and the flexibility of bulk battery systems—that will truly make the transition to high renewable energy possible."

Like the Port of Long Beach, transportation hubs across the nation are adapting to a complex environment of new mobility solutions. Airports and public transit stations involve the movement of passengers, goods, and services at a volume exceeding anywhere else. With the transition to digitally connected electric mobility changing how airports plan for the future, NREL projects such as Athena are using the power of high-performance computing to demonstrate how these hubs can maximize the value of passenger and freight mobility per unit of energy, time, and/or cost.

The growth in complexity for transportation hubs has just begun, however. Looking ahead, fleets of ride-sharing EVs, automated vehicles, and automated ride-sharing EV fleets could present the largest effort to manage mobility yet.

A Self-Driving Power Grid
To understand the full impact of future mobility-service providers, NREL developed the HIVE (Highly Integrated Vehicle Ecosystem) simulation framework. HIVE combines factors related to serving mobility needs and grid operations—such as a customer's willingness to carpool or delay travel, and potentially time-variable costs of recharging—and simulates the outcome in an integrated environment.

"Our question is, how do you optimize the management of a fleet whose primary purpose is to provide rides and improve that fleet's dispatch and charging?" said Eric Wood, an NREL vehicle systems engineer.

HIVE was developed as part of NREL's Autonomous Energy Systems research to optimize the control of automated vehicle fleets. That is, optimized routing and dispatch of automated electric vehicles.

The project imagines how price signals could influence dispatch algorithms. Consider one customer booking a commute through a ride-hailing app. Out of the fleet of vehicles nearby—variously charged and continually changing locations—which one should pick up the customer?

Now consider the movements of thousands of passengers in a city and thousands of vehicles providing transportation services. Among the number of agents, the moment-to-moment change in energy supply and demand, and the broad diversity in vendor technologies, "we're playing with a lot of parameters," Wood said.

But cutting through all the complexity, and in the midst of massive simulations, the end goal for vehicle-to-grid integration is consistent:

"The motivation for our work is that there are forecasts for significant load on the grid from the electrification of transportation," Wood said. "We want to ensure that this load is safely and effectively integrated, while meeting the expectations and needs of passengers."

The Port of Long Beach uses a mix of hydrogen fuel-cell and battery EVs, battery storage systems, on-site renewable generation, and extreme coordination among everything. Credit: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
True Replacement without Caveats

Electric vehicles are not necessarily helpful to the grid, but they can be. As EVs become established in the transportation sector, NREL is studying how to even out any bumps that electrified mobility could cause on the grid and advance any benefits to commuters or industry.

"It all comes down to load flexibility," Meintz said. "We're trying to decide how to optimally dispatch vehicle charging to meet quality-of-service considerations, while also minimizing charging costs."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Newfoundland and Labrador electricity rate hike examines a proposed 18.6% increase under the PUB's Rate Stabilization Plan, driven by oil prices at Holyrood, with Consumer Advocate concerns over rate shock and use of RSP balances.

Key Points

A proposed 18.6% July 2017 increase under the RSP, driven by oil prices, now under PUB review for potential mitigation.

✅ PUB flags potential rate shock from proposed adjustment

✅ RSP balances cited to offset increases without depleting fund

✅ Oil-fired Holyrood volatility drives fuel cost uncertainty

How much of a rate hike is reasonable for users of electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador?

That's a question before the Public Utilities Board (PUB) as it examines an application by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which could see consumers pay up to 18.6 per cent more as of July 1, reflecting regional pressures seen in Nova Scotia, where regulators approved a 14% rate hike earlier this year.

"The estimated rate increase for July 2017 is such a significant increase that it may be argued that it would cause rate shock," said the PUB, asking the company to revise its application.

NL Hydro said the price adjustment is part of what happens every year through the Rate Stabilization Plan (RSP), which is used to offset the ups and downs of oil prices.

"The cost of fuel is volatile and as long as we rely on oil-fired generation at Holyrood, customers will continue to be impacted by this electricity price uncertainty," said the company in a statement to CBC News.

It noted that customers received a break from RSP adjustments in 2015 and 2016, even as costs from the Muskrat Falls project begin to be reflected.

The PUB noted that under the rate stabilization plan, prices have gone up or down by about 10 per cent in the past.

The regulatory board said the impact of the latest request would be a 27.6 per cent hike to Newfoundland Power, with "an estimated average end customer impact of 18.6 per cent."

Hydro's estimates are based on an average price for oil of $81.40 per barrel from July 2017 to June 2018, according to the PUB.

'Unacceptable' burden: Consumer Advocate

"To burden ratepayers with an 18 per cent rate increase is unacceptable," said Consumer Advocate Dennis Browne, echoing pushback in Nova Scotia, where the premier urged regulators to reject a 14% hike at the time.

Browne is arguing that there is money in the RSP to reduce the proposed increase, including the possibility of a lump-sum bill credit for customers.

"These ratepayer balances — which, according to NL Power, totals $77.4 million — are not the property of Hydro," he wrote in a letter to the PUB.

"No utility has the right to squirrel away ratepayers' money to be used by that utility for some future purpose. The Board has jurisdiction over those balances," Browne said.

Browne also wants the RSP overhauled so that it can be applied to price fluctuations every quarter, as opposed to annually.

Hydro has expressed concern that depleting the rate stabilization fund would lead to other, more significant, rate increases in the future.

It said several alternatives to mitigate high rates have been provided to the PUB, which has final say, similar to how Manitoba Hydro scaled back a planned increase in the next year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. 100% Tariff on Chinese EVs aims to protect domestic manufacturing, counter subsidies, and reshape the EV market, but could raise prices, disrupt supply chains, invite retaliation, and complicate climate policy and trade relations.

Key Points

A 100% import duty on Chinese EVs to boost U.S. manufacturing, counter subsidies, and address supply chain risks.

✅ Protects domestic EV manufacturing and jobs

✅ Counters alleged subsidies and IP concerns

✅ May raise prices, limit choice, trigger retaliation

President Joe Biden's administration recently made headlines with its announcement of a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), marking a significant escalation in trade tensions between the two economic powerhouses. The decision, framed as a measure to protect American industries and promote domestic manufacturing, has sparked debates over its potential impact on the EV market, global supply chains, and bilateral relations between the United States and China.

The imposition of a 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs reflects the Biden administration's broader efforts to revitalize the American automotive industry and promote the transition to electric vehicles as part of its climate agenda and tighter EPA emissions rules that could accelerate adoption. By imposing tariffs on imported EVs, particularly those from China, the administration aims to incentivize domestic production and create jobs in the growing green economy, and to secure critical EV metals through allied supply efforts. Additionally, the tariff is seen as a response to concerns about unfair trade practices, including intellectual property theft and market distortions, allegedly perpetuated by Chinese companies.

However, the announcement has triggered a range of reactions from various stakeholders, with both proponents and critics offering contrasting perspectives on the potential consequences of such a policy. Proponents argue that the tariff will help level the playing field for American automakers, who face stiff competition from Chinese companies benefiting from government subsidies and lower production costs. They contend that promoting domestic manufacturing of EVs will not only create high-quality jobs but also enhance national security by reducing dependence on foreign supply chains at a time when an EV inflection point is approaching.

On the other hand, critics warn that the 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs could have unintended consequences, including higher prices for consumers, as seen in the UK EV prices and Brexit debate, disruptions to global supply chains, and retaliatory measures from China. Chinese EV manufacturers, such as NIO, BYD, and XPeng, have been gaining momentum in the global market, offering competitive products at relatively affordable prices. The tariff could limit consumer choice at a time when U.S. EV market share dipped in Q1 2024, potentially slowing the adoption of electric vehicles and undermining efforts to combat climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Moreover, the tariff announcement comes at a sensitive time for U.S.-China relations, which have been strained by various issues, including trade disputes, human rights concerns, and geopolitical tensions. The imposition of tariffs on Chinese-made EVs could further exacerbate bilateral tensions, potentially leading to retaliatory measures from China and escalating trade frictions. As the world's two largest economies, the United States and China have significant economic interdependencies, and any escalation in trade tensions could have far-reaching implications for global trade and economic stability.

In response to the Biden administration's announcement, Chinese officials have expressed concerns and called for dialogue to resolve trade disputes through negotiation and mutual cooperation. China has also emphasized its commitment to fair trade practices and compliance with international rules and regulations governing trade.

Moving forward, the Biden administration faces the challenge of balancing its domestic priorities with the need to maintain constructive engagement with China and other trading partners, even as EV charging networks scale under its electrification push. While promoting domestic manufacturing and protecting American industries are legitimate policy goals, achieving them without disrupting global trade and undermining diplomatic relations requires careful deliberation and strategic foresight.

In conclusion, President Biden's announcement of a 100% tariff on Chinese-made electric vehicles reflects his administration's commitment to revitalizing American industries and promoting domestic manufacturing. However, the decision has raised concerns about its potential impact on the EV market, global supply chains, and U.S.-China relations. As policymakers navigate these complexities, finding a balance between protecting domestic interests and fostering international cooperation will be crucial to achieving sustainable economic growth and addressing global challenges such as climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario Hydro Crisis highlights soaring electricity rates, costly subsidies, nuclear refurbishments, and stalled renewables in Ontario. Policy missteps, weak planning, and rising natural gas emissions burden ratepayers while energy efficiency and storage remain underused.

Key Points

High power costs and subsidies from policy errors, nuclear refurbishments, stalled efficiency and renewables in Ontario.

✅ $5.6B yearly subsidy masks electricity rates and deficits

✅ Nuclear refurbishments embed rising costs for decades

✅ Efficiency, storage, and DERs stalled amid weak planning

By Mark Winfield

While the troubled Site C and Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam projects in B.C. and Newfoundland and Labrador have drawn a great deal of national attention over the past few months, Ontario has quietly been having a hydro crisis of its own.

One of the central promises in the 2018 platform of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party was to “clean up the hydro mess,” and then-PC leader Doug Ford vowed to fire Hydro One's leadership as part of that effort. There certainly is a mess, with the costs of subsidies taken from general provincial revenues to artificially lower hydro rates nearing $7 billion annually. That is a level approaching the province’s total pre-COVID-19 annual deficit. After only two years, that will also exceed total expected cost overruns of the Site C and Muskrat Falls projects, currently estimated at $12 billion ($6 billion each).

There is no doubt that Doug Ford’s government inherited a significant mess around the province’s electricity system from the previous Liberal governments of former premiers Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. But the Ford government has also demonstrated a remarkable capacity for undoing the things its predecessors had managed to get right while doubling down on their mistakes.

The Liberals did have some significant achievements. Most notably: coal-fired electricity generation, which constituted 25 per cent of the province’s electricity supply in the early 2000s, was phased out in 2014. The phaseout dramatically improved air quality in the province. There was also a significant growth in renewable energy production. From  virtually zero in 2003, the province installed 4,500 MW of wind-powered generation, and 450 MW of solar photovoltaic by 2018, a total capacity more than double that of the Sir Adam Beck Generating Stations at Niagara Falls.

At the same time, public concerns over rising hydro rates flowing from a major reconstruction of the province’s electricity system from 2003 onwards became a central political issue in the province. But rather than reconsider the role of the key drivers of the continuing rate increases – namely the massively expensive and risky refurbishments of the Darlington and Bruce nuclear facilities, the Liberals adopted a financially ruinous Fair Hydro Plan. The central feature of the 2017 plan was a short-term 25 per cent reduction in hydro rates, financed by removing the provincial portion of the HST from hydro bills, and by extending the amortization period for capital projects within the system. The total cost of the plan in terms of lost revenues and financing costs has been estimated in excess of $40 billion over 29 years, with the burden largely falling on future ratepayers and taxpayers.

Decision-making around the electricity system became deeply politicized, and a secret cabinet forecast of soaring prices intensified public debate across Ontario. Legislation adopted by the Wynne government in 2016 eliminated the requirement for the development of system plans to be subject to any form of meaningful regulatory oversight or review. Instead, the system was guided through directives from the provincial cabinet. Major investments like the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments proceeded without meaningful, public, external reviews of their feasibility, costs or alternatives.

The Ford government proceeded to add more layers to these troubles. The province’s relatively comprehensive framework for energy efficiency was effectively dismantled in March, 2019, with little meaningful replacement. That was despite strong evidence that energy efficiency offered the most cost-effective strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and electricity costs.

The Ford government basically retained the Fair Hydro Plan and promised further rate reductions, later tabling legislation to lower electricity rates as well. To its credit, the government did take steps to clarify real costs of the plan. Last year, these were revealed to amount to a de facto $5.6 billion-per-year subsidy coming from general revenues, and rising. That constituted the major portion of the province’s $7.4 billion pre-COVID-19 deficit. The financial hole was deepened further through November’s financial statement, with the addition of a further $1.3 billion subsidy to commercial and industrial consumers. The numbers can only get worse as the costs of the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments become embedded more fully into electricity rates.

The government also quietly dispensed with the last public vestige of an energy planning framework, relieving itself of the requirement to produce a Long-Term Energy Plan every three years. The next plan would normally have been due next month, in February.

Even the gains from the 2014 phaseout of coal-fired electricity are at risk. Major increases are projected in emissions of greenhouse gases, smog-causing nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from natural gas-fired power plants as the plants are run to cover electricity needs during the Bruce and Darlington refurbishments over the next decade. These developments could erode as much as 40 per cent of the improvements in air quality and greenhouse gas emission gained through the coal phaseout.

The province’s activities around renewable energy, energy storage and distributed energy resources are at a standstill, with exception of a few experimental “sandbox” projects, while other jurisdictions face profound electricity-sector change and adapt. Globally, these technologies are seen as the leading edge of energy-system development and decarbonization. Ontario seems to have chosen to make itself an energy innovation wasteland instead.

The overall result is a system with little or no space for innovation that is embedding ever-higher costs while trying to disguise those costs at enormous expense to the provincial treasury and still failing to provide effective relief to low-income electricity consumers.

The decline in electricity demand associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, along with the introduction of a temporary recovery rate for electricity, gives the province an opportunity to step back and consider its next steps with the electricity system. A phaseout of the Fair Hydro Plan electricity-rate reduction and its replacement with a more cost-effective strategy of targeted relief aimed at those most heavily burdened by rising hydro rates, particularly rural and low-income consumers, as reconnection efforts for nonpayment have underscored the hardship faced by many households, would be a good place to start.

Next, the province needs to conduct a comprehensive, public review of electricity options available to it, including additional renewables – the costs of which have fallen dramatically over the past decade – distributed energy resources, hydro imports from Quebec and energy efficiency before proceeding with further nuclear refurbishments.

In the longer term, a transparent, evidence-based process for electricity system planning needs to be established – one that is subject to substantive public and regulatory oversight and review. Finally, the province needs to establish a new organization to be called Energy Efficiency Ontario to revive its efforts around energy efficiency, developing a comprehensive energy-efficiency strategy for the province, covering electricity and natural gas use, and addressing the needs of marginalized communities.

Without these kinds of steps, the province seems destined to continue to lurch from contradictory decision after contradictory decision as the economic and environmental costs of the system’s existing trajectory continue to rise.

Mark Winfield is a professor of environmental studies at York University and co-chair of the university’s Sustainable Energy Initiative.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nuclear Plant Climate Risks span flood risk, heat stress, and water scarcity, threatening operations, safety systems, and steam generation; resilience depends on mitigation investments, cooling-water management, and adaptive maintenance strategies.

Key Points

Climate-driven threats to nuclear plants: floods, heat, and water stress requiring resilience and mitigation.

✅ Flooding threats to safety and cooling systems

✅ Heat stress reduces thermal efficiency and output

✅ Water scarcity risks limit cooling capacity

Climate change can affect every aspect of nuclear plant operations like fuel handling, power and steam generation and the need for resilient power systems planning, maintenance, safety systems and waste processing, the credit rating agency said.

However, the ultimate credit impact will depend upon the ability of plant operators to invest in carbon-free electricity and other mitigating measures to manage these risks, it added.
Close proximity to large water bodies increase the risk of damage to plant equipment that helps ensure safe operation, the agency said in a note.

Moody’s noted that about 37 gigawatts (GW) of U.S. nuclear capacity is expected to have elevated exposure to flood risk and 48 GW elevated exposure to combined rising heat, extreme heat costs and water stress caused by climate change.

Parts of the Midwest and southern Florida face the highest levels of heat stress, while the Rocky Mountain region and California face the greatest reduction in the availability of future water supply, illustrating the need for adapting power generation to drought strategies, it said.

Nuclear plants seeking to extend their operations by 20, or even 40 years, beyond their existing 40-year licenses in support of sustaining U.S. nuclear power and decarbonization face this climate hazard and may require capital investment adjustments, Moody’s said, as companies such as Duke Energy climate report respond to investor pressure for climate transparency.

“Some of these investments will help prepare for the increasing severity and frequency of extreme weather events, highlighting that the US electric grid is not designed for climate impacts today.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News