The Sierra Club has filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Energy accusing the agency of providing incentives for a $2 billion coal plant in Mississippi without conducting an adequate environmental review of the project.
Mississippi Power Co. is building the 582-megawatt plant near the Liberty community in Kemper County. It will use a process that converts coal into a synthesis gas that can generate electricity with fewer emissions than existing pulverized coal power plants.
The suit filed on behalf of the San Francisco-based environmental group alleges DOE ignored the National Environmental Policy Act NEPA to consider other clean-energy alternatives that have been a focus of the Obama administration.
"The Department of Energy didn't play by the rules or the law in issuing the funding and financing for the Kemper County plant. It think it's unconscionable the U.S. taxpayer is being asked to pony up $600 million guarantee up to $2 billion," said Louie Miller, director of the Mississippi Sierra Club. "Why are we subsidizing a Fortune 500 company?"
The complaint names as defendants the agency its director Steven Chu Carol M. Borgstrom, director of DOE's Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance and Richard A. Hargis, Jr., the NEPA document manager for DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory.
Tiffany Edwards, a DOE spokeswoman, said the agency officials "will review the complaint and we are confident we acted lawfully."
According to Mississippi Power's website, the coal plant project will receive a $270 million grant from the DOE to offset the cost of constructing the facility. The company said it also will receive $133 million in investment tax credits approved by the IRS provided under the National Energy Policy Act of 2005, and loan guarantees from the federal government. Mississippi Power has also applied for an additional $279 million in IRS tax credits, according to the site.
A spokeswoman for Mississippi Power didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
"They're getting a lot of help from a lot of different places," said Abigail Dillen, an attorney Earthjustice, a nonprofit law firm that filed the suit on behalf of the Sierra Club.
In the complaint, the Sierra Club said President Obama has set a target date of 2035 for the country to get 80 percent of its electricity from clean energy technology. However, in administering federal grant and loan guarantee programs, the agency isn't challenging the industry to propose cutting-edge projects that rely on clean energy resources, the complaint said.
The Sierra Club has alleged the plant will emit 5.7 million tons and year.
Verdell Hawkins, Mississippi Power spokesman, said the facility will use technology that will capture 65 percent of the carbon emissions, which is the equivalent of a similarly sized natural gas plant.
The lawsuit said the DOE's selection process wasn't subject to public comment. The DOE opened its second of three rounds of solicitations for the Clean Coal Power Initiative in 2004. After receiving 13 applications, DOE prepared a summary environmental "critique" of eleven of the proposals based on information provided by the applicants, the suit said.
All the information in the environmental critique, including the identity of the applicants and the nature of the projects submitted, remains confidential, the suit said.
In late 2004, four projects were selected to receive CCPI funding. Among those, was the Kemper County plant, which was awarded $293 million, including a $23 million grant it had earlier received. The others included another coal-fired plant and two projects focused on pollution control technology for coal-fired power plants, according to the suit.
Dillen said the DOE received a "fairly unambitious array of projects" and decided to select among them rather than push companies to pursue more innovative plans that were in line with the clean energy initiative.
Canada 100% Renewable Power by 2035 envisions a decentralized grid built on wind, solar, energy storage, and efficiency, delivering zero-emission, resilient, low-cost electricity while phasing out nuclear and gas to meet net-zero targets.
Key Points
Zero-emission, decentralized grid using wind, solar, and storage, plus efficiency, to retire fossil and nuclear by 2035.
✅ Scale wind and solar 18x with storage for reliability.
✅ Phase out nuclear and gas; no CCS or offsets needed.
✅ Modernize grids and codes; boost efficiency, jobs, and affordability.
A powerful derecho that left nearly a million people without power in Ontario and Quebec on May 21 was a reminder of the critical importance of electricity in our daily lives.
Canada’s electrical infrastructure could be more resilient to such events, while being carbon-emission free and provide low-cost electricity with a decentralized grid powered by 100 per cent renewable energy, according to a new study from the David Suzuki Foundation (DSF), a vision of an electric, connected and clean future if the country chooses.
This could be accomplished by 2035 by building a lot more solar and wind, despite indications that demand for solar electricity has lagged in Canada, adding energy storage, while increasing the energy efficiency in buildings, and modernizing provincial energy grids. As this happens, nuclear energy and gas power would be phased out. There would also be no need for carbon capture and storage nor carbon offsets, the modeling study concluded.
“Solar and wind are the cheapest sources of electricity generation in history,” said study co-author Stephen Thomas, a mechanical engineer and climate solutions policy analyst at the DSF.
“There are no technical barriers to reaching 100 per cent zero-emission electricity by 2035 nationwide,” Thomas told The Weather Network (TWN). However, there are considerable institutional and political barriers to be overcome, he said.
Other countries face similar barriers and many have found ways to reduce their emissions; for example, the U.S. grid's slow path to 100% renewables illustrates these challenges. There are enormous benefits including improved air quality and health, up to 75,000 new jobs annually, and lower electricity costs. Carbon emissions would be reduced by 200 million tons a year by 2050, just over one quarter of the reductions needed for Canada to meet its overall net zero target, the study stated.
Building a net-zero carbon electricity system by 2035 is a key part of Canada’s 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan. Currently over 80 per cent of the nation’s electricity comes from non-carbon sources including a 15 per cent contribution from nuclear, with solar capacity nearing a 5 GW milestone nationally. How the final 20 per cent will be emission-free is currently under discussion.
The Shifting Power study envisions an 18-fold increase in wind and solar energy, with the Prairie provinces expected to lead growth, along with a big increase in Canada’s electrical generation capacity to bridge the 20 per cent gap as well as replacing existing nuclear power.
The report does not see a future role for nuclear power due to the high costs of refurbishing existing plants, including the challenges with disposal of radioactive wastes and decommissioning plants at their end of life. As for the oft-proposed small modular nuclear reactors, their costs will likely “be much more costly than renewables,” according to the report.
There are no technical barriers to building a bigger, cleaner, and smarter electricity system, agrees Caroline Lee, co-author of the Canadian Climate Institute’s study on net-zero electricity, “The Big Switch” released in May. However, as Lee previously told TWN, there are substantial institutional and political barriers.
In many respects, the Shifting Power study is similar to Lee’s study except it phases out nuclear power, forecasts a reduction in hydro power generation, and does not require any carbon capture and storage, she told TWN. Those are replaced with a lot more wind generation and more storage capacity.
“There are strengths and weaknesses to both approaches. We can do either but need a wide debate on what kind of electricity system we want,” Lee said.
That debate has to happen immediately because there is an enormous amount of work to do. When it comes to energy infrastructure, nearly everything “we put in the ground has to be wind, solar, or storage” to meet the 2035 deadline, she said.
There is no path to net zero by 2050 without a zero-emissions electricity system well before that date. Here are some of the necessary steps the report provided:
Create a range of skills training programs for renewable energy construction and installation as well as building retrofits.
Prioritize energy efficiency and conservation across all sectors through regulations such as building codes.
Ensure communities and individuals are fully informed and can decide if they wish to benefit from hosting energy generation infrastructure.
Create a national energy poverty strategy to ensure affordable access.
Strong and clear federal and provincial rules for utilities that mandate zero-emission electricity by 2035.
For Indigenous communities, make sure ownership opportunities are available along with decision-making power.
Canada should move as fast as possible to 100 per cent renewable energy to gain the benefits of lower energy costs, less pollution, and reduced carbon emissions, says Stanford University engineer and energy expert Mark Jacobson.
“Canada has so many clean, renewable energy resources that it is one of the easier countries [that can] transition away from fossil fuels,” Jacobson told TWN.
For the past decade, Jacobson has been producing studies and technical reports on 100 per cent renewable energy, including a new one for Canada, even as Canada is often seen as a solar power laggard today. The Stanford report, A Solution to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Insecurity for Canada, says a 100 per cent transition by 2035 timeline is ideal. Where it differs from DSF’s Shifting Power report is that it envisions offshore wind and rooftop solar panels which the latter did not.
“Our report is very conservative. Much more is possible,” agrees Thomas.
“We’re lagging behind. Canadians really want to get going on building solutions and getting the benefits of a zero emissions electricity system.”
Ontario CDM Programs expand energy efficiency, demand response, and DER incentives via IESO's Save on Energy, cutting peak demand, lowering bills, and supporting electrification, retrofits, and LED lighting to meet Ontario's growing electricity needs.
Key Points
Ontario CDM Programs are IESO incentives that cut peak demand and energy use via demand response, retrofits and DERs.
✅ Delivered by IESO's Save on Energy to reduce peak demand
✅ Incentives for demand response, retrofits, LEDs, and DER solutions
✅ Help homes, businesses, and greenhouses lower bills and emissions
Ontario will be making available four new and expanded energy-efficiency programs, also known as Conservation and Demand Management (CDM) programs, to ensure a reliable, affordable, and clean electricity system, including ultra-low overnight pricing options to power the province, drive electrification and support strong economic growth. As there will be a need for additional electricity capacity in Ontario beginning in 2025, and continuing through the decade, CDM programs are among the fastest and most cost-effective ways of meeting electricity system needs.
Conservation and Demand Management
The Ontario government launched the 2021-2024 CDM Framework on January 1, 2021. The framework focuses on cost-effectively meeting the needs of Ontario’s electricity system, including by focusing on the achievement of provincial peak demand reductions and initiatives such as extended off-peak electricity rates, as well as on targeted approaches to address regional and/or local electricity system needs.
CDM programs are delivered by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which implemented staff lockdown measures during COVID-19, through the Save on Energy brand. These programs address electricity system needs and help consumers reduce their electricity consumption to lower their bills. CDM programs and incentives are available for homeowners, small businesses, large businesses, and contractors, and First Nations communities.
New and Expanded Programs
The four new and expanded CDM programs will include:
A new Residential Demand Response Program for homes with existing central air conditioning and smart thermostats to help deliver peak demand reductions. Households who meet the criteria could voluntarily enroll in this program and, alongside protections like disconnection moratoriums for residential customers, be paid an incentive in return for the IESO being able to reduce their cooling load on a select number of summer afternoons to reduce peak demand. There are an estimated 600,000 smart thermostats installed in Ontario. Targeted support for greenhouses in Southwest Ontario, including incentives to install LED lighting, non-lighting measures or behind-the-meter distributed energy resources (DER), such as combined solar generation and battery storage. Enhancements to the Save On Energy Retrofit Program for business, municipalities, institutional and industrial consumers to include custom energy-efficiency projects. Examples of potential projects could include chiller and other HVAC upgrades for a local arena, building automation and air handling systems for a hospital, or building envelope upgrades for a local business. Enhancements to the Local Initiatives Program to reduce barriers to participation and to add flexibility for incentives for DER solutions. It is the government’s intention that the new and expanded CDM programs will be available to eligible electricity customers beginning in Spring 2023.
The IESO estimates that the new program offers will deliver total provincial peak electricity demand savings of 285 megawatts (MW) and annual energy savings of 1.1 terawatt hours (TWh) by 2025, reflecting pandemic-era electricity usage shifts across Ontario. Savings will persist beyond 2025 with a total reduction in system costs by approximately $650 million over the lifetime of the measures, and will support economic recovery, as seen with electricity relief during COVID-19 measures, decarbonization and energy cost management for homes and businesses.
These enhancements will have a particular impact in Southwest Ontario, with regional peak demand savings of 225 MW, helping to alleviate electricity system constraints in the region and foster economic development, supported by stable electricity pricing for industrial and commercial companies in Ontario.
The overall savings from this CDM programming will result in an estimated three million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions reductions over the lifetime of the energy-efficiency measures to help achieve Ontario’s climate targets and protect the environment for the future.
The IESO will be updating the CDM Framework Program Plan, which provides a detailed breakdown of program budgets and energy savings and peak demand targets expected to be achieved.
Germany Nuclear Phase-Out reflects a decisive energy policy shift, retiring reactors as firms shun new builds amid high costs, radioactive waste challenges, climate goals, insurance gaps, and debate over small modular reactors and subsidies.
Key Points
Germany's policy to end nuclear plants and block new builds, emphasizing safety, waste, climate goals, and viability.
✅ Driven by safety risks, waste storage limits, and insurance gaps
✅ High capital costs and subsidies make new reactors uneconomic
✅ Political debate persists; SMRs raise cost and proliferation concerns
A year has passed since Germany deactivated its last three nuclear power plants, marking a significant shift in its energy policy.
Nuclear fission once heralded as the future of energy in Germany during the 1960s, was initially embraced with minimal concern for the potential risks of nuclear accidents. As Heinz Smital from Greenpeace recalls, the early optimism was partly driven by national interest in nuclear weapon technology rather than energy companies' initiatives.
Jochen Flasbarth, State Secretary in the Ministry of Development, reflects on that era, noting Germany's strong, almost naive, belief in technology. Germany, particularly the Ruhr region, grappled with smog-filled skies at that time due to heavy industrialization and coal-fired power plants. Nuclear energy presented a "clean" alternative at the time.
This sentiment was also prevalent in East Germany, where the first commercial nuclear power plant came online in 1961. In total, 37 nuclear reactors were activated across Germany, reflecting a widespread confidence in nuclear technology.
However, the 1970s saw a shift in attitudes. Environmental activists protested the construction of new power plants, symbolizing a generational rift. The 1979 Three Mile Island incident in the US, followed by the catastrophic Chornobyl disaster in 1986, further eroded public trust in nuclear energy.
The Chornobyl accident, in particular, significantly dampened Germany's nuclear ambitions, according to Smital. Post-Chernobyl, plans for additional nuclear power plants in Germany, once numbering 60, drastically declined.
The emergence of the Green Party in 1980, rooted in anti-nuclear sentiment, and its subsequent rise to political prominence further influenced Germany's energy policy. The Greens, joining forces with the Social Democrats in 1998, initiated a move away from nuclear energy, facing opposition from the Christian Democrats (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU).
However, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 prompted a policy reversal from CDU and CSU under Chancellor Angela Merkel, leading to Germany's eventual nuclear phase-out in March 2023, after briefly extending nuclear power amid the energy crisis.
Recently, the CDU and CSU have revised their stance once more, signaling a potential U-turn on the nuclear phaseout, advocating for new nuclear reactors and the reactivation of the last shut-down plants, citing climate protection and rising fossil fuel costs. CDU leader Friedrich Merz has lamented the shutdown as a "black day for Germany." However, these suggestions have garnered little enthusiasm from German energy companies.
Steffi Lemke, the Federal Environment Minister, isn't surprised by the companies' reluctance, noting their longstanding opposition to nuclear power, which she argues would do little to solve the gas issue in Germany, due to its high-risk nature and the long-term challenge of radioactive waste management.
Globally, 412 reactors are operational across 32 countries, even as Europe is losing nuclear power during an energy crunch, with the total number remaining relatively stable over the years. While countries like China, France, and the UK plan new constructions, there's a growing interest in small, modern reactors, which Smital of Greenpeace views with skepticism, noting their potential military applications.
In Germany, the unresolved issue of nuclear waste storage looms large. With temporary storage facilities near power plants proving inadequate for long-term needs, the search for permanent sites faces resistance from local communities and poses financial and logistical challenges.
Environment Minister Lemke underscores the economic impracticality of nuclear energy in Germany, citing prohibitive costs and the necessity of substantial subsidies and insurance exemptions.
As things stand, the resurgence of nuclear power in Germany appears unlikely, with economic factors playing a decisive role in its future.
ITER Nuclear Fusion advances tokamak magnetic confinement, heating deuterium-tritium plasma with superconducting magnets, targeting net energy gain, tritium breeding, and steam-turbine power, while complementing laser inertial confinement milestones for grid-scale electricity and 2025 startup goals.
Key Points
ITER Nuclear Fusion is a tokamak project confining D-T plasma with magnets to achieve net energy gain and clean power.
✅ Tokamak magnetic confinement with high-temp superconducting coils
✅ Deuterium-tritium fuel cycle with on-site tritium breeding
✅ Targets net energy gain and grid-scale, low-carbon electricity
It sounds like the stuff of dreams: a virtually limitless source of energy that doesn’t produce greenhouse gases or radioactive waste. That’s the promise of nuclear fusion, often described as the holy grail of clean energy by proponents, which for decades has been nothing more than a fantasy due to insurmountable technical challenges. But things are heating up in what has turned into a race to create what amounts to an artificial sun here on Earth, one that can provide power for our kettles, cars and light bulbs.
Today’s nuclear power plants create electricity through nuclear fission, in which atoms are split, with next-gen nuclear power exploring smaller, cheaper, safer designs that remain distinct from fusion. Nuclear fusion however, involves combining atomic nuclei to release energy. It’s the same reaction that’s taking place at the Sun’s core. But overcoming the natural repulsion between atomic nuclei and maintaining the right conditions for fusion to occur isn’t straightforward. And doing so in a way that produces more energy than the reaction consumes has been beyond the grasp of the finest minds in physics for decades.
But perhaps not for much longer. Some major technical challenges have been overcome in the past few years and governments around the world have been pouring money into fusion power research as part of a broader green industrial revolution under way in several regions. There are also over 20 private ventures in the UK, US, Europe, China and Australia vying to be the first to make fusion energy production a reality.
“People are saying, ‘If it really is the ultimate solution, let’s find out whether it works or not,’” says Dr Tim Luce, head of science and operation at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), being built in southeast France. ITER is the biggest throw of the fusion dice yet.
Its $22bn (£15.9bn) build cost is being met by the governments of two-thirds of the world’s population, including the EU, the US, China and Russia, at a time when Europe is losing nuclear power and needs energy, and when it’s fired up in 2025 it’ll be the world’s largest fusion reactor. If it works, ITER will transform fusion power from being the stuff of dreams into a viable energy source.
Constructing a nuclear fusion reactor ITER will be a tokamak reactor – thought to be the best hope for fusion power. Inside a tokamak, a gas, often a hydrogen isotope called deuterium, is subjected to intense heat and pressure, forcing electrons out of the atoms. This creates a plasma – a superheated, ionised gas – that has to be contained by intense magnetic fields.
The containment is vital, as no material on Earth could withstand the intense heat (100,000,000°C and above) that the plasma has to reach so that fusion can begin. It’s close to 10 times the heat at the Sun’s core, and temperatures like that are needed in a tokamak because the gravitational pressure within the Sun can’t be recreated.
When atomic nuclei do start to fuse, vast amounts of energy are released. While the experimental reactors currently in operation release that energy as heat, in a fusion reactor power plant, the heat would be used to produce steam that would drive turbines to generate electricity, even as some envision nuclear beyond electricity for industrial heat and fuels.
Tokamaks aren’t the only fusion reactors being tried. Another type of reactor uses lasers to heat and compress a hydrogen fuel to initiate fusion. In August 2021, one such device at the National Ignition Facility, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, generated 1.35 megajoules of energy. This record-breaking figure brings fusion power a step closer to net energy gain, but most hopes are still pinned on tokamak reactors rather than lasers.
In June 2021, China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor maintained a plasma for 101 seconds at 120,000,000°C. Before that, the record was 20 seconds. Ultimately, a fusion reactor would need to sustain the plasma indefinitely – or at least for eight-hour ‘pulses’ during periods of peak electricity demand.
A real game-changer for tokamaks has been the magnets used to produce the magnetic field. “We know how to make magnets that generate a very high magnetic field from copper or other kinds of metal, but you would pay a fortune for the electricity. It wouldn’t be a net energy gain from the plant,” says Luce.
One route for nuclear fusion is to use atoms of deuterium and tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen. They fuse under incredible heat and pressure, and the resulting products release energy as heat
The solution is to use high-temperature, superconducting magnets made from superconducting wire, or ‘tape’, that has no electrical resistance. These magnets can create intense magnetic fields and don’t lose energy as heat.
“High temperature superconductivity has been known about for 35 years. But the manufacturing capability to make tape in the lengths that would be required to make a reasonable fusion coil has just recently been developed,” says Luce. One of ITER’s magnets, the central solenoid, will produce a field of 13 tesla – 280,000 times Earth’s magnetic field.
The inner walls of ITER’s vacuum vessel, where the fusion will occur, will be lined with beryllium, a metal that won’t contaminate the plasma much if they touch. At the bottom is the divertor that will keep the temperature inside the reactor under control.
“The heat load on the divertor can be as large as in a rocket nozzle,” says Luce. “Rocket nozzles work because you can get into orbit within minutes and in space it’s really cold.” In a fusion reactor, a divertor would need to withstand this heat indefinitely and at ITER they’ll be testing one made out of tungsten.
Meanwhile, in the US, the National Spherical Torus Experiment – Upgrade (NSTX-U) fusion reactor will be fired up in the autumn of 2022, while efforts in advanced fission such as a mini-reactor design are also progressing. One of its priorities will be to see whether lining the reactor with lithium helps to keep the plasma stable.
Choosing a fuel Instead of just using deuterium as the fusion fuel, ITER will use deuterium mixed with tritium, another hydrogen isotope. The deuterium-tritium blend offers the best chance of getting significantly more power out than is put in. Proponents of fusion power say one reason the technology is safe is that the fuel needs to be constantly fed into the reactor to keep fusion happening, making a runaway reaction impossible.
Deuterium can be extracted from seawater, so there’s a virtually limitless supply of it. But only 20kg of tritium are thought to exist worldwide, so fusion power plants will have to produce it (ITER will develop technology to ‘breed’ tritium). While some radioactive waste will be produced in a fusion plant, it’ll have a lifetime of around 100 years, rather than the thousands of years from fission.
At the time of writing in September, researchers at the Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor in Oxfordshire were due to start their deuterium-tritium fusion reactions. “JET will help ITER prepare a choice of machine parameters to optimise the fusion power,” says Dr Joelle Mailloux, one of the scientific programme leaders at JET. These parameters will include finding the best combination of deuterium and tritium, and establishing how the current is increased in the magnets before fusion starts.
The groundwork laid down at JET should accelerate ITER’s efforts to accomplish net energy gain. ITER will produce ‘first plasma’ in December 2025 and be cranked up to full power over the following decade. Its plasma temperature will reach 150,000,000°C and its target is to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power for every 50 megawatts of input heating power.
“If ITER is successful, it’ll eliminate most, if not all, doubts about the science and liberate money for technology development,” says Luce. That technology development will be demonstration fusion power plants that actually produce electricity, where advanced reactors can build on decades of expertise. “ITER is opening the door and saying, yeah, this works – the science is there.”
Millstone COVID-19 safety concerns center on a nuclear refueling outage in Connecticut, temporary workers, OSHA complaints, PPE shortages, and disinfecting protocols, as Dominion Energy addresses virus precautions, staffing, and cybersecurity for safe voting infrastructure.
Key Points
Employee and union claims about PPE, cleaning, and OSHA compliance during a refueling outage at the nuclear plant.
✅ 10 positive cases; 750 temporary workers during refueling outage
✅ Union cites PPE gaps, partitions, and disinfectant effectiveness
✅ Dominion Energy notes increased cleaning, communication, staffing
Workers at Connecticut's only nuclear power plant worry that managers are not taking enough precautions against the coronavirus, as some utilities weigh on-site staffing measures to maintain operations, after 750 temporary employees were brought in to help refuel one of the two active reactors.
Ten employees at the Millstone Power Station in Waterford have tested positive for the virus, and, amid a U.S. grid pandemic warning, the arrival of the temporary workers alarms some of the permanent employees, The Day newspaper reported Sunday.
"Speaking specifically for the guard force, there's a lot of frustration, there's a lot of concern, and I would say there's anger," said Millstone security officer Jim Foley.
Foley, vice president of the local chapter of the United Government Security Officers of America, noted broader labor concerns such as unpaid wages for Kentucky miners while saying security personnel have had to fight for personal protective equipment and for partitions at access points to separate staff from security.
Foley also has filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration saying Millstone staff are using ineffective cleaning materials and citing a lack of cleaning and sanitizing, as telework limits at the EPA drew scrutiny during the pandemic, he said.
Officials at Millstone, owned by Dominion Energy, have not heard internal criticism about the plant's virus precautions, Millstone spokesman Kenneth Holt said.
"We've actually gotten a lot of compliments from employees on the steps we've taken," he said. "We've stepped up communications with employees to let them know what's going on."
As another example of communication efforts, COVID-19 updates at Site C have been published to keep workers informed.
Millstone recently increased cleaning staff on the weekends, Holt said, and there is regular disinfecting at the plant.
Responding to the complaint about ineffective cleaning materials, Holt said staff members early in the pandemic went to a Home Depot and got a bottle of disinfectant that wasn't approved by the federal government as effective against the coronavirus. An approved disinfectant was brought in the next day, he said.
The deaths of nearly 2,500 Connecticut residents have been linked to COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus. More than 29,000 state residents have tested positive. As of Sunday, hospitalizations had declined for 11 consecutive days, to over 1,480.
With more people working remotely, utilities have reported higher residential electricity use during the pandemic, affecting household bills.
For most people, the coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough, that clear up in two to three weeks. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia, and death.
In other developments related to the coronavirus:
SAFE VOTING
Secretary of the State Denise Merrill released a plan Monday aimed at making voting safe during the Aug. 11 primary and Nov. 3 general election.
Merrill said her office is requiring all cities and towns in the state to submit plans for the two elections that include a list of cleaning and safety products to be used, a list of polling locations, staffing levels at each polling location, and the names of polling workers and moderators.
Municipalities will be eligible for grants to cover the extra costs of holding elections during a pandemic, including expenses for cleaning products and increased staffing.
Merrill also announced her office and the Connecticut National Guard will perform a high-level cybersecurity assessment of the election infrastructure of all 169 towns in the state to guard against malicious actors.
Merrill's office also will provide network upgrades to the election infrastructures of 20 towns that have had chronic problems with connecting to the elections system.
Ontario Electricity Rates update: OEB sets time-of-use and tiered pricing for residential customers, with kWh charges for peak, mid-peak, and off-peak periods reflecting COVID-19 impacts on demand, supply costs, and pricing.
Key Points
Ontario Electricity Rates are OEB-set time-of-use and tiered prices that set per-kWh costs for residential customers.
✅ Tiered: 12.6 cents/kWh up to 1000 kWh, then 14.6 cents/kWh
✅ Average 700 kWh home pays about $2.24 more per month
Energy bills for the typical Ontario home are going up by about two per cent with fixed pricing coming to an end on Nov. 1, the Ontario Energy Board says.
The province's electricity regulator has released new time-of-use pricing and says the rate for the average residential customer using 700 kWh per month will increase by about $2.24.
The change comes as Ontario stretches into its eight month of the COVID-19 pandemic with new case counts reaching levels higher than ever seen before.
Time-of-use pricing had been scrapped for residential bills for much for the pandemic with a single fixed COVID-19 hydro rate set for all hours of the day. The move, which came into effect June 1, was meant "to support families, small business and farms while Ontario plans for the safe and gradual reopening of the province," the OEB said at the time.
Fixed pricing meant customers' bills reflected how much power they used, rather than when they used it. Customers were charged 12.8 cents/kWh under the COVID-19 recovery rate no matter their time of use.
Beginning November, the province says customers can choose between time-of-use and tiered pricing options. Rates for time-of-use plans will be 21.7 cents/kWh during peak hours, 15 cents/kWh for mid-peak use and 10.5 cents/kWh for off-peak use.
Customers choosing tiered pricing will pay 12.6 cents/kWh for the first 1000 kWh each month and then 14.6 cents/kWh for any power used beyond that.
The energy board says the increase in pricing reflects "a combination of factors, including those associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, that have affected demand, supply costs and prices in the summer and fall of 2020."
Asked for his reaction to the move Tuesday, Premier Doug Ford said, "I hate it," adding the province inherited an energy "mess" from the previous Liberal government and are "chipping away at it."
