After complaints by Idaho Power Co.'s largest customers, regulators have ordered the state's biggest utility to sell about $2 million worth of renewable energy credits and use the money to benefit ratepayers, instead of retiring or banking the credits in expectation of new federal laws requiring more renewable energy generation.
The recent decision by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission reverses its January 28 ruling to allow Idaho Power to hold on to the credits.
Idaho Power wanted to take the credits, known as "Green Tags," off the market or bank them. That would have allowed the utility to publicly tout its commitment to renewable energy — or use the credits in the future to help meet new renewable energy standards. The U.S. Senate is considering legislation to require the country to generate up to 15 percent of its power from renewable resources, including wind and solar, by 2021.
But the Industrial Customers of Idaho Power, a group that includes the J.R. Simplot Co., argued the tags should be sold and the proceeds turned into savings for all Idaho Power customers.
The three-member commission found "no compelling evidence" that banking the tags would "lessen the company's burden in meeting a future federal standard," the panel wrote in its latest decision. "Unless and until the federal government establishes renewable energy standards and corresponding guidelines, we find the most prudent disposition of these Green Tags, at this time, is their sale."
"We have the commission's order and we're in the process of reviewing and digesting it," said Stephanie McCurdy, a spokeswoman in Boise.
The credits consist of 320,000 megawatt hours of Green Tags generated in 2007 and 2008 from Idaho Power's Elkhorn Wind project in Oregon and the Raft River geothermal plant near Malta in southern Idaho.
If Idaho Power continues to sell Green Tags from the plants, it loses the right to claim any environmental attributes gained from those resources. Whoever buys and retires the credits would be able to claim that it bought renewable energy.
The Industrial Customers of Idaho Power argued that retiring the credits would hurt ratepayers, just so the utility could say it was a green company.
That goal "may or may not be a laudable one," the group's lawyer, Peter Richardson, wrote in documents filed with the commission. "However, the cost of such image advertising needs to be examined in light of the company's current advertising budget. There is nothing in the record suggesting that the approximately $2 million loss to the ratepayers is reasonable in light of the other funds the ratepayers are providing Idaho Power for image advertising."
Idaho Power is under increasing scrutiny over how it generates power to serve more than 487,000 residential customers. In 2008, it generated 40 percent of its electricity from coal-fired plants; 38 percent from dams; 1 percent from gas or diesel plants; and bought 21 percent of its electricity from others.
Just recently, 52 percent of shareholders backed a resolution at Idaho Power's annual meeting, urging the utility to do more to bolster its renewable energy portfolio and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Environmental groups, including the Idaho Conservation League and the Renewable Northwest Project, based in Portland, Ore., had wanted the regulators to stick with their original decision.
"Idaho Power and its customers will reap many benefits by retaining the environmental attributes of renewable energy purchases," the groups argued in PUC documents. "First, Idaho Power will be ahead of the game in our current regulatory climate. Most importantly, Idaho Power will be able to comply with Oregon's Renewable Portfolio Standard in 2025, which will require at least 10 percent of electricity serving to come from renewable resources."
Retiring the Green Tags would also help the company meet any new greenhouse gas emissions standards, the groups said.
Iran Combined-Cycle Power Plants drive energy efficiency, cut greenhouse gases, and expand megawatt capacity by converting thermal units; MAPNA-led upgrades boost grid reliability, reduce fuel use, and accelerate electricity generation growth nationwide.
Key Points
Upgraded thermal plants that reuse waste heat to boost efficiency, cut emissions, and add capacity to Iran's grid.
✅ 27 thermal plants converted; 160 more viable units identified
✅ Adds 12,600 MW capacity via heat recovery steam generators
✅ Combined-cycle share: 31.2% of 80.509 GW capacity
Iran has turned six percent of its thermal power plans into combined cycle plants in order to reduce greenhouse gases and save energy, with potential to lift thermal plants' PLF under rising demand, IRNA reported, quoting an energy official.
According to the MAPNA Group’s Managing Director Abbas Aliabadi, so far 27 thermal power plants have been converted to combined-cycle ones, aligning with Iran’s push to transmit power to Europe as a regional hub.
“The conversion of a thermal power plant to a combined cycle one takes about one to two years, however, it is possible for us to convert all the country’s thermal power plants into combined cycle plants over a five-year period.
Currently, a total of 478 thermal power plants are operating throughout Iran, of which 160 units could be turned into combined cycle plants. In doing so, 12,600 megawatts will be added to the country’s power capacity, supporting ongoing exports such as supplying a large share of Iraq's electricity under existing arrangements.
As reported by IRNA on Wednesday, Iran’s Nominal electricity generation capacity has reached 80,509 megawatts (80.509 gigawatts), and it is deepening energy cooperation with Iraq to bolster regional reliability. The country increased its electricity generation capacity by 500 megawatts (MW) compared to the last year (ended on March 20).
Currently, with a total generation capacity of 25,083 MW (31.2 percent) combined cycle power plants account for the biggest share in the country’s total power generation capacity followed by gas power plants generating 29.9 percent, amid global trends where renewables are set to eclipse coal and regional moves such as Israel's coal reduction signal accelerating shifts. EF/MA
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Hurricane Michael Statistics track catastrophic wind speed, storm surge, rainfall totals, power outages, evacuations, and fatalities across Florida and the Southeast, detailing Category 4 intensity, Saffir-Simpson scale impacts, and emergency response resources.
Key Points
Hurricane Michael statistics detail wind speed, storm surge, rainfall, outages, and deaths from Category 4 landfall.
✅ 155 mph landfall winds; 14 ft storm surge; 12 in rainfall max
✅ 1.6M without power; 30,000 restoring crews; 6 states emergency
✅ 325k ordered evacuations; 32 deaths; FEMA and Guard deployed
Hurricane Michael, a historic Category 4 storm, struck the Florida Panhandle early Wednesday afternoon, unleashing heavy rain, high winds and a devastating storm surge.
Here is a look at the dangerous storm by the numbers:
155 mph: Wind speed -- nearly the highest possible for a Category 4 hurricane -- with which Michael made landfall near Mexico Beach and Panama City. A hurricane with 157 mph or higher is a Category 5, the strongest on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale.
129 mph: Peak wind gust reported Wednesday at Tyndall Air Force Base, which is about 12 miles southeast of Panama City, Florida.
32: Number of storm-related deaths attributed to Michael thus far, including an 11-year-old girl who local officials say was killed when part of a metal carport crashed into her family's mobile home in Lake Seminole, Georgia, and a 38-year-old man who was killed when a tree fell onto his moving car in Statesville, North Carolina.
Waves take over a house as Hurricane Michael comes ashore in Alligator Point, Fla., Oct. 10, 2018.
14 feet: Maximum height forecast for the storm surge when Michael's strong winds pushed the ocean water onto land. A storm surge just over 9 feet was reported Wednesday in Apalachicola, Florida.
12 inches: Isolated maximum amount of rain that Michael was expected to dump across the Florida Panhandle and the state's Big Bend region, as well as in southeast Alabama and parts of southwest and central Georgia.
9 inches: Maximum amount of rain that Michael could bring to isolated areas from Virginia to North Carolina.
1.6 million: Number of homes and businesses without power in Florida, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia as of Friday morning, a reminder that extended outages can persist after major disasters.
30,000: Number of workers mobilized from across the country to help restore power, underscoring the risks of field repairs such as line crew injuries during recovery.
6: Number of states that had emergency declarations in anticipation of Michael: Florida, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia.
325,000: Estimated number of people in the storm's path who were told to evacuate by local authorities.
6,000: Approximate number of people who stayed in the roughly 80 shelters across Florida, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina on Wednesday night, while those sheltering at home were urged to avoid overheated power strips that can spark fires.
3,000: Number of personnel the Federal Emergency Management Agency deployed ahead of landfall, while utilities prepared on-site staffing plans to maintain operations during widespread disruptions.
35: Number of counties in Florida, of the state's 67, where Gov. Rick Scott declared a state of emergency prior to landfall, and grid reliability warnings often underscore systemic risks during national emergencies.
3,500: Number of Florida National Guard troops activated for pre-landfall coordination and planning, with an emphasis on high water and search-and-rescue operations.
600: Number of Florida state troopers assigned to the Panhandle and Big Bend region to assist with response and recovery efforts, including public reminders about downed line safety in affected communities.
500: Number of disaster relief workers that the American Red Cross was sending to affected areas in the Sunshine State.
200: Approximate number of patients being evacuated from at least two hospitals in Florida due to damage from the hurricane, highlighting how critical facilities depend on staff who have raised workforce safety concerns during other crises. Bay Medical Center Sacred Heart in Panama City said in a statement Thursday that its facility was damaged during the storm and thus is transferring more than 200 patients, including 39 who are critically ill, to regional hospitals. Gulf Coast Regional Medical Center, also in Panama City, announced in a statement Thursday that it's evacuating its roughly approximately patients, starting with the most critically ill, "because of the infrastructure challenges in our community."
Nova Scotia Power Rate Increase 2023-2024 approved by the UARB lifts electricity rates 14 percent, citing fuel costs and investments, despite Bill 212; includes ROE 9 percent, decarbonization deferral, and a storm cost recovery rider.
Key Points
An approved UARB rate case raising electricity bills about 14% over 2023-2024, with ROE 9% and cost recovery tools.
✅ UARB approves average 6.9% annual increases for 2023 and 2024.
✅ Government opposed via Bill 212, but settlement mostly upheld.
Nova Scotia regulators approved a 14 per cent electricity rate hike on Thursday, defying calls by Premier Tim Houston to reject the increase.
Rates will rise on average by 6.9 per cent each year in 2023 and 2024.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, the NL Consumer Advocate called an 18 per cent electricity rate hike unacceptable amid affordability concerns.
The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB) issued a 203-page decision ratifying most of the elements in a settlement agreement reached between Nova Scotia Power and customer groups after Houston's government legislated a rate, spending and profit cap on the utility in November.
The board said approval was in the public interest and the increase is "reasonable and appropriate."
"The board cannot simply disallow N.S. Power's reasonable costs to make rates more affordable. These principles ensure fair rates and the financial health of a utility so it can continue to invest in the system providing services to its customers," the three-member panel wrote.
"While the board can (and has) disallowed costs found to be imprudent or unreasonable, absent such a finding, N.S. Power's costs must be reflected in the rates."
In addition to the 14 per cent hike, the board maintained Nova Scotia Power's current return on equity of 9 per cent, with an earnings band of 8.75 to 9.25 per cent. It agreed in principle to establish a decarbonization deferral account to pay for the retirement of coal plants and related decommissioning costs, and implemented a storm cost recovery rider for a three-year trial period.
The board rejected several items in the agreement, including rolling some Maritime Link transmission capital projects into consumers' rates.
Nova Scotia Power welcomed the ruling in a statement, describing it as "the culmination of an extensive and transparent regulatory process over the past year."
Natural Resources and Renewables Minister Tory Rushton, who has said the government cannot order lower power rates in Nova Scotia, stated the UARB decision was not what the government wanted, but he did not indicate the government has any plans to bring forward legislation to overturn it.
"We're disappointed by the decision today. We've always been very clear that we were standing by ratepayers right from the get-go but we also respect the independent body of the UARB and their decision today."
Pressure from the province Houston claimed the settlement breached his government's legislation, known as Bill 212 in Nova Scotia, which he said was intended to protect ratepayers. It capped rates to cover non-fuel costs by 1.8 per cent. It did not cap rates to cover fuel costs or energy efficiency programs.
Bill 212 was passed after the board concluded weeks of public hearings into Nova Scotia Power's request for an electricity rate increase, its first general rate application in 10 years. Nova Scotia Power is a subsidiary of Halifax-based Emera, which is a publicly traded company.
The legislation triggered credit downgrades from two credit rating agencies who said it compromised the independence of the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, electricity users have begun paying for Muskrat Falls as project costs flow through rates, highlighting broader pressures on Atlantic Canada utilities.
In its decision, the board accepted that legislation was intended to protect ratepayers but did not preclude increases in rates.
"Given the exclusion of fuel and purchased power costs when these were expected to cause significant upward pressure on rates, it also did not preclude large increases in rates. Instead, the protection afforded by the Public Utilities Act amendments appears to be focused on N.S. Power's non-fuel costs, with several amendments targeting N.S. Power's cost of capital and earnings."
The board noted the province was the only intervenor in the rate case to object to the settlement.
Opposition reaction Rushton said despite the outcome, Bill 212 achieved its goal, which was to protect ratepayers.
"Without Bill 212 the rates would have actually been higher," he said. "It would have double-digit rates for this year and next year and now it's single digits."
NDP Leader Claudia Chender said the end result is that Nova Scotians are still facing "incredibly unaffordable power."
Similar criticism emerged in Saskatchewan after an 8 per cent SaskPower increase, which the NDP opposed during provincial debates.
"It's really unfortunate for a lot of Nova Scotians who are heading into a freezing weekend where heat is not optional."
Chender said a different legislative approach is needed to change the regulatory system, and more needs to be done to help people pay their electricity bills.
Liberal MLA Kelly Regan echoed that sentiment.
"There are lots of people who can absorb this. There are a lot of people who cannot, and those are the people that we should be worried about right now. This is why we've been saying all along the government needs to actually give money directly to Nova Scotians who need help with power rates."
Rushton said the government has introduced programs to help Nova Scotians pay for heat, including raising the income threshold to access the Heating Assistance Rebate Program and creating incentives to install heat pumps.
Powering Ontario's Growth accelerates clean electricity, pairing solar, wind, and hydro with energy storage, efficiency investments, and new nuclear, including SMRs, to meet rising demand and net-zero goals while addressing supply planning across the province.
Key Points
Ontario's clean energy plan adds renewables, storage, efficiency, and nuclear to meet rising electricity demand.
✅ Over $1B for energy-efficiency programs through 2030+
✅ Largest clean power procurement in Canadian history
✅ Mix of solar, wind, hydro, storage, nuclear, and SMRs
Energy Minister Todd Smith has announced a new plan that outlines the actions the government is taking to address the province's growing demand for electricity.
The government is investing over a billion dollars in "energy-efficiency programs" through 2030 and beyond, Smith said in Windsor.
Experts at Ontario's Independent Electricity System recommended the planning start early to meet demand they predict will require the province to be able to generate 88,000 megawatts (MW) in 20 years.
"That means all of our current supply ... would need to double to meet the anticipated demand by 2050," he said during the announcement.
"While we may not need to start building today, government and those in the energy sector need to start planning immediately, so we have new clean, zero emissions projects ready to go when we need them."
The project is called Powering Ontario's Growth and will advance new clean energy generation from a number of sources, including solar, hydroelectric and wind.
Smith made the announcement at Hydro One's Keith Transmission Station.
He said the new planned procurement of green power will pair well with recent energy storage procurements, so that power generated by solar panels, for example, can be stored and injected into the system when needed.
NDP Opposition Leader Marit Stiles said Monday's announcement lacks specifics.
"It's light on details, including key questions of cost, climate impact, waste management and financial risk," said Stiles.
"Ford's Conservatives should be playing catch-up after undermining clean energy in their first term. Instead, they're offering generalities and a vague sense of what they might do."
The Green Party criticized the move Monday afternoon, noting that clean, affordable electricity remains a key Ontario election issue today.
"Ontario is facing an energy crunch – and the Ford government is making it worse by choosing more expensive, dirtier options," said MPP for Guelph Mike Schreiner in the statement.
He said Premier Doug Ford has "grossly" mismanaged the province's energy supply by cancelling 750 renewable energy projects and slashing efficiency programs.
"Now, faced with an opportunity to become a leader in a world that's rapidly embracing renewable energy, this government has chosen to funnel taxpayer dollars into polluting fossil gas plants and expensive new nuclear that will take decades to come online," said Schreiner.
Smith announced last week the plan for three more small modular reactors at the site of the Darlington nuclear power plant. The province also shared its intention to add a third nuclear generating station to Bruce Power near Kincardine.
"With this backwards approach, the Ford government is squandering a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make Ontario a global leader in attracting investment dollars and creating better jobs in the trillion-dollar clean energy sector," said Schreiner.
European Power Crisis intensifies as record electricity prices, nuclear output cuts, gas supply strain, heatwave drought, and Rhine shipping bottlenecks hit Germany, France, and Switzerland, tightening winter storage and driving long-term contracts higher.
Key Points
A surge in European power prices from heatwaves, nuclear curbs, Rhine coal limits, and reduced Russian gas supply.
✅ Record year-ahead prices in Germany and France
✅ Nuclear output curbed by warm river cooling limits
✅ Rhine low water disrupts coal logistics and generation
Benchmark power prices in Europe hit fresh records Friday as utilities are increasingly reducing electricity output in western Europe because of the hot weather.
Next-year contracts in Germany and France, Europe’s biggest economies rose to new highs after Switzerland’s Axpo Holding AG announced curbs at one of its nuclear plants. Electricite de France SA is also reducing nuclear output because of high river temperatures and cooling water restrictions, while Uniper SE in Germany is struggling to get enough coal up the river Rhine.
Europe is suffering its worst energy crunch in decades, and losing nuclear power is compounding the strain as gas cuts made by Russia in retaliation for sanctions drive a surge in prices. The extreme heat led to the driest July on record in France and is underscoring the impact that a warming climate is having on vital infrastructure.
Water levels on Germany’s Rhine have fallen so low that the river may effectively close soon, impacting supplies of coal to the plants next to it. The Rhone and Garonne in France and the Aare in Switzerland are all too warm to be used to cool nuclear plants effectively, forcing operators to limit energy output under environmental constraints.
Northwest European weather forecast for the next two weeks: relates to European Power Hits Records as Plants Start to Buckle in Heat
The German year-ahead contract gained as much as 2% to 413 euros a megawatt-hour on the European Energy Exchange AG. The French equivalent rose 1.9% to a record 535 euros. Long-term prices are coming under pressure because producing less power from nuclear and coal will increase the demand for natural gas, which is badly needed to fill storage sites ahead of the winter.
France to Curb Nuclear Output as Europe’s Energy Crisis Worsens Uniper SE said on Thursday that two of its coal-fired stations along the Rhine may need to curb output during the next few weeks as transporting coal along the Rhine becomes impossible.
Plants on the river near Mannheim and Karlsruhe, operated by Grosskraftwerk Mannheim AG and EnBW AG, have previously struggled to source coal because of the shallow water, even as German renewables deliver more electricity than coal and nuclear at times. Both companies said generation hasn’t been affected yet.
“The low tide is not currently affecting our generation of energy because our plants do not have the need for continuous fresh water,” a Steag GmbH spokesman said on Friday. “But the low tide level can make running plants and transporting coal more complicated than usual.”
The spokesman said though that there is slight reduction in output of about 10 to 15 megawatts, which would equate to a few percent, because of the hot temperatures. “This has been happening over some time now and is a problem for everyone because the plant system is not designed to withstand such hot temperatures,” he said.
