Lower Churchill Falls hearings to begin

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

CCUS in the U.S. Power Sector drives investments as DOE grants, 45Q tax credits, and EPA carbon rules spur carbon capture, geologic storage, and utilization, while debates persist over costs, transparency, reliability, and emissions safeguards.

Key Points

CCUS captures CO2 from power plants for storage or use, backed by 45Q tax credits, DOE funding, and EPA carbon rules.

✅ DOE grants and 45Q credits aim to de-risk project economics.

✅ EPA rules may require capture rates to meet emissions limits.

✅ Transparency and MRV guard against tax credit abuse.

New public and private funding, including DOE $110M for CCUS announced recently, and expected strong federal power plant emissions reduction standards have accelerated electricity sector investments in carbon capture, utilization and storage,’ or CCUS, projects but some worry it is good money thrown after bad.

CCUS separates carbon from a fossil fuel-burning power plant’s exhaust through carbon capture methods for geologic storage or use in industrial and other applications, according to the Department of Energy. Fossil fuel industry giants like Calpine and Chevron are looking to take advantage of new federal tax credits and grant funding for CCUS to manage potentially high costs in meeting power plant performance requirements, amid growing investor pressure for climate reporting, including new rules, expected from EPA soon, on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants.

Power companies have “ambitious plans” to add CCUS to power plants, estimated to cause 25% of U.S. CO2 emissions. As a result, the power sector “needs CCUS in its toolkit,” said DOE Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Assistant Secretary Brad Crabtree. Successful pilots and demonstrations “will add to investor confidence and lead to more deployment” to provide dispatchable clean energy, including emerging CO2-to-electricity approaches for power system reliability after 2030,| he added.

But environmentalists and others insist potentially cost-prohibitive CCUS infrastructure, including CO2 storage hub initiatives, must still prove itself effective under rigorous and transparent federal oversight.

“The vast majority of long-term U.S. power sector needs can be met without fossil generation, and better options are being deployed and in development,” Sierra Club Senior Advisor, Strategic Research and Development, Jeremy Fisher, said, pointing to carbon-free electricity investments gaining momentum in the market. CCUS “may be needed, but without better guardrails, power sector abuses of federal funding could lead to increased emissions and stranded fossil assets,” he added.

New DOE CCUS project grants, an increased $85 per metric ton, or tonne, federal 45Q tax credit, and the forthcoming EPA power plant carbon rules and the federal coal plan will do for CCUS what similar policies did for renewables, advocates and opponents agreed. But controversial past CCUS performance and tax credit abuses must be avoided with transparent reporting requirements for CO2 capture, opponents added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Ontario Clean Energy Expansion signals IESO-backed renewables, energy storage, and low-CO2 power to meet EV-driven demand, offset Pickering nuclear retirement, and balance interim gas-fired generation while advancing grid reliability, decarbonization, and net-zero targets.

Key Points

Ontario Clean Energy Expansion plans to grow renewables and storage, manage short-term gas, and meet rising demand.

✅ IESO long-term procurements for renewables and storage

✅ Interim reliance on gas to replace Pickering capacity

✅ Targets align with net-zero grid reliability goals

After cancelling hundreds of renewable power projects four years ago, the Doug Ford government appears set to expand clean energy to meet a looming electricity shortfall across the province.

Recent announcements from Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith and the province’s electric grid management agency suggest the province plans to expand low-CO2 electricity with new wind and solar plans in the long-term, even as it ramps up gas-fired power over the next five years.

The moves are in response to an impending electricity shortfall as climate-conscious drivers switch to electric vehicles, farmers replace field crops with greenhouses and companies like ArcelorMittal Dofasco in Hamilton switch from CO2-heavy manufacturing to electricity-based production. Forecasters predict Canada will need to double its power supply by 2050.

While Ontario has a relatively low-CO2 power system, the province’s electricity supply will be reduced in 2025 when Ontario Power Generation closes the 50-year-old Pickering nuclear station, now near the end of its operating life. This will remove 3,100 megawatts of low-CO2 generation, about eight per cent of the province’s 40,000-megawatt total.

The impending closure has created a difficult situation for the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), the provincial agency managing Ontario’s grid. Last year, it forecasted it would need to sharply increase CO2-polluting natural gas-fired power to avoid widespread blackouts.

This would mean drivers switching to electric vehicles or companies like Dofasco cutting CO2 through electrification would end up causing higher power system emissions.

It would also fly in the face of the federal government’s ambition to create a net-zero national electricity system by 2035, a critical part of Canada’s pledge to reduce CO2 emissions to zero by 2050.

Yet the Ford government has appeared reluctant to expand clean energy. In the 2018 election, clean electricity was a key issue as it appealed to anti-turbine voters in rural Ontario and cancelled more than 700 renewable energy contracts shortly after taking office, taking 400 megawatts out of the system.

But there are signs the government is having a change of heart. IESO recently released a list of 55 companies approved to submit bids for 3,500 megawatts of long-term electricity contracts starting between 2025 and 2027, and the energy minister has outlined a plan to address growing energy needs as well.

The companies include a variety of potential producers, ranging from Canadian and global renewable companies to local utilities and small startups. Most are renewable power or energy storage companies specializing in low- or zero-emission power. IESO plans additional long-term bid offerings in the future.

This doesn’t mean gas generation will be turned off. IESO will contract yearly production from existing gas plants until 2028 (the annual contract in 2023 will be for about 2,000 megawatts). As well, IESO has issued contracts to four gas-fired producers, a small wind company and a storage company to begin production of about 700 megawatts to boost gas plant output starting between 2024 and 2026.

While this represents an expansion of existing gas-fired generation, Smith has asked IESO to report on a gas moratorium, saying he doesn’t believe new gas plants will be needed over the long term.

The NDP and Greens criticized the government for relying on gas in the near term. But clean energy advocates greeted the long-term plans positively.

The IESO process “will contribute to a clean, reliable and affordable grid,” said the Canadian Renewable Energy Association.

Rachel Doran, director of policy and strategy at Clean Energy Canada, said in an email the potential gas generation moratorium “is an encouraging step forward,” although she criticized the “unfortunate decision to replace near-term nuclear power capacity with climate-change-causing natural gas.”

There will have to be a massive clean energy expansion to green Ontario’s grid well beyond what has been announced in recent days for Ontario to meet its future energy needs (think a doubling of Ontario’s current 40,000-megawatt capacity by 2050).

But these first steps hold promise that Ontario is at least starting on the path to that goal, rather than scrambling to keep the lights on with CO2-polluting natural gas.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario SMR BWRX-300 leads Canada in next-gen nuclear energy at Darlington, with GE Vernova and Hitachi, delivering clean, reliable power via modular design, passive safety, scalability, and lower costs for grid integration.

Key Points

Ontario SMR BWRX-300 is a 300 MW modular boiling water reactor at Darlington with passive safety and clean power.

✅ 300 MW BWR supplies power for about 300,000 homes

✅ Passive safety enables safe shutdown without external power

✅ Modular design reduces costs and speeds grid integration

Ontario has initiated the construction of Canada's first small modular nuclear reactor (SMR), supported by OPG's SMR commitment to deployment, marking a significant milestone in the province's energy strategy. This development positions Ontario at the forefront of next-generation nuclear technology within the G7 nations.

The project, known as the Darlington New Nuclear Project, is being led by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) in collaboration with GE Vernova and Hitachi Nuclear Energy, and through its OPG-TVA partnership on new nuclear technology development. The chosen design is the BWRX-300, a 300-megawatt boiling water reactor that is approximately one-tenth the size and complexity of traditional nuclear reactors. The first unit is expected to be operational by 2029, with plans for additional units to follow.

Each BWRX-300 reactor is projected to supply electricity to about 300,000 homes, contributing to Ontario's efforts, which include the decision to refurbish Pickering B for additional baseload capacity, to meet the anticipated 75% increase in electricity demand by 2050. The compact design of the SMR allows for easier integration into existing infrastructure, reducing the need for extensive new transmission lines.

The economic impact of the project is substantial. The construction of four such reactors is expected to create up to 18,000 jobs and contribute approximately $38.5 billion CAD to the Canadian economy, reflecting the economic benefits of nuclear projects over 65 years. The modular nature of SMRs also allows for scalability, with each additional unit potentially reducing costs through economies of scale.

Safety is a paramount consideration in the design of the BWRX-300. The reactor employs passive safety features, meaning it can safely shut down without the need for external power or operator intervention. This design enhances the reactor's resilience to potential emergencies, aligning with stringent regulatory standards.

Ontario's commitment to nuclear energy is further demonstrated by its plans for four SMRs at the Darlington site. This initiative reflects a broader strategy to diversify the province's energy mix, incorporating clean and reliable power sources to complement renewable energy efforts.

While the development of SMRs in Ontario is a significant step forward, it also aligns with the Canadian nuclear initiative positioning Canada as a leader in the global nuclear energy landscape. The successful implementation of the BWRX-300 could serve as a model for other nations exploring advanced nuclear technologies.

Ontario's groundbreaking work on small modular nuclear reactors represents a forward-thinking approach to energy generation. By embracing innovative technologies, the province is not only addressing future energy demands but also, through the Pickering NGS life extension, contributing to the global transition towards sustainable and secure energy solutions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BC Autonomous Vehicle Ban freezes new driverless testing and deployment as BC develops a regulatory framework, prioritizing safety, liability clarity, and road sharing with pedestrians and cyclists while existing pilot projects continue.

Key Points

A moratorium pausing new driverless testing until a safety-first regulatory framework and clear liability rules exist.

✅ Freezes new AV testing and deployment provincewide

✅ Current pilot shuttles continue under existing approvals

✅ Focus on safety, liability, and road-user integration

British Columbia has halted the expansion of fully autonomous vehicles on its roads. The province has announced it will not approve any new applications for testing or deployment of vehicles that operate without a human driver until it develops a new regulatory framework, even as it expands EV charging across the province.

Safety Concerns and Public Questions

The decision follows concerns about the safety of self-driving vehicles and questions about who would be liable in the event of an accident. The BC government emphasizes the need for robust regulations to ensure that self-driving cars and trucks can safely share the road with traditional vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists, and to plan for infrastructure and power supply challenges associated with electrified fleets.

"We want to make sure that British Columbians are safe on our roads, and that means putting the proper safety guidelines in place," said Rob Fleming, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. "As technology evolves, we're committed to developing a comprehensive framework to address the issues surrounding self-driving technology."

What Does the Ban Mean?

The ban does not affect current pilot projects involving self-driving vehicles that already operate in BC, such as limited shuttle services and segments of the province's Electric Highway that support charging and operations.

Industry Reaction

The response from industry players working on autonomous vehicle technology has been mixed, amid warnings of a potential EV demand bottleneck as adoption ramps up. While some acknowledge the need for clear regulations, others express concern that the ban could stifle innovation in the province.

"We understand the government's desire to ensure safety, but a blanket ban risks putting British Columbia behind in the development of this important technology," says a spokesperson for a self-driving vehicle start-up.

Debate Over Self-Driving Technology

The BC ban highlights a larger debate about the future of autonomous vehicles. While proponents point to potential benefits such as improved safety, reduced traffic congestion, and increased accessibility, and national policies like Canada's EV goals aim to accelerate adoption, critics raise concerns about liability, potential job losses in the transportation sector, and the ability of self-driving technology to handle complex driving situations.

BC Not Alone

British Columbia is not the only jurisdiction grappling with the regulation of self-driving vehicles. Several other provinces and states in both Canada and the U.S. are also working to develop clear legal and regulatory frameworks for this rapidly evolving technology, even as studies suggest B.C. may need to double its power output to fully electrify road transport.

The Road Ahead

The path forward for fully autonomous vehicles in BC depends on the government's ability to create a regulatory framework that balances safety considerations with fostering innovation, and align with clean-fuel investments like the province's hydrogen project to support zero-emission mobility.  When and how that framework will materialize remains unclear, leaving the future of self-driving cars in the province temporarily uncertain.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada Manufacturing Policy prioritizes affordable energy, trims carbon taxes, aligns with Buy America, and supports the resource sector, PPE and plastics supply, nearshoring, and resilient supply chains amid COVID-19, correcting costly green energy policies.

Key Points

A policy to boost industry with affordable energy, lower carbon taxes, resource ties, and aligned U.S. trade.

✅ Cuts energy costs and carbon tax burdens for competitiveness

✅ Rebuilds resource-sector linkages and domestic supply chains

✅ Seeks Buy America relief and clarity on plastics regulation

By Jocelyn Bamford

Since its inception in 2017, the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses has warned all levels of government that there would be catastrophic effects if policies that drove both the manufacturing and natural resources sectors out of the country were adopted.

The very origins of our coalition was in the fight for a competitive landscape in Ontario, a cornerstone of which is affordable energy and sounding the alarm that the Green Energy Policy in Ontario pushed many manufacturers out of the province.

The Green Energy Policy made electricity in Ontario four times the average North American rate. These unjust prices were largely there to subsidize the construction of expensive and inefficient wind and solar energy infrastructure, even as cleaning up Canada's grid is cited as critical to meeting climate pledges.

My company’s November hydro bill was $55,000 and $36,500 of that was the so-called global adjustment charge, the name given to these green energy costs.

Unaffordable electricity, illustrated by higher Alberta power costs in recent years, coupled with ever-more burdensome carbon taxes, have pushed Canadian manufacturing into the open arms of other countries that see the importance of affordable energy to attract business.

One can’t help but ask the question: If Canada had policies that attracted and maintained a robust manufacturing sector, would we be in the same situation with a lack of personal protective equipment and medical supplies for our front-line medical workers and our patients during this pandemic?  If our manufacturing sector wasn’t crippled by taxes and regulation, would it be more nimble and able to respond to a national emergency?

It seems that the federal government’s policies are designed to push manufacturing out, stifle our resource sector, and kill the very plastics industry that is so essential to keeping our front-line medical staff, patients, and citizens safe, even as the net-zero race accelerates federally.

As the federal government chased its obsession with a new green economy – a strange obsession given our country’s small contribution to global GHGs – including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 advocated by some leaders, it has been blinded from the real threats to our country, threats that became very, very real with COVID-19.

After the pandemic has passed, the federal government must work to make Canada manufacturing and resource friendly again, recognizing that the IEA net-zero electricity report projects the need for more power. COVID-19 proves that Canada relies on a robust resource economy and manufacturing sector to survive. We need to ensure that we are prepared for future crises like the one we are facing now.

Here are five things our government can do now to meet that end:

1. End all carbon taxes immediately.

2. Create a mandate to bring manufacturing back to Canada through competitive offerings and favourable tax regimes.

3. Recognize the interconnections between the resource sector and manufacturing, including how fossil-fuel workers support the transition across supply chains. Many manufacturers supply parts and pieces to the resource sector, and they rely on affordable energy to compete globally.

4. Stop the current federal government initiative to label plastic as toxic. At a time when the government is appealing to manufacturers to re-tool and produce needed plastic products for the health care sector, labelling plastics as toxic is counterproductive.

5. Work to secure a Canadian exemption to Buy America. This crisis has clearly shown us that dependency on China is dangerous. We must forge closer ties with America and work as a trading block in order to be more self-sufficient.

These are troubling times. Many businesses will not survive.

We need to take back our manufacturing sector.  We need to take back our resource sector.

We need to understand the interconnected nature of these two important segments of our gross domestic production, and opportunities like an Alberta–B.C. grid link to strengthen reliability.
If we do not, in the next pandemic we may find ourselves not only without ventilators, masks and gowns but also without energy to operate our hospitals.

Jocelyn Bamford is a Toronto business executive and President of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News