NIMBY: Nukes In My Backyard

Russia-Ukraine Energy Ceasefire Violations escalate as U.S.-brokered truce frays, with drone strikes, shelling, and grid attacks disrupting gas supply and power infrastructure across Kursk, Luhansk, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk, prompting sanctions calls.

Key Points

Alleged breaches of a U.S.-brokered truce, with both sides striking power grids, gas lines, and critical energy nodes.

✅ Drone and artillery attacks reported on power and gas assets

✅ Both sides accuse each other of breaking truce terms

✅ U.S. mediation faces verification and compliance hurdles

Russia and Ukraine have traded fresh accusations regarding violations of a fragile energy ceasefire, brokered by the United States, which both sides had agreed to last month. These new allegations highlight the ongoing tensions between the two nations and the challenges involved in implementing a truce amid global energy instability in such a complex and volatile conflict.

The U.S.-brokered ceasefire had initially aimed to reduce the intensity of the fighting, specifically in the energy sector, where both sides had previously targeted each other’s infrastructure. Despite this agreement, the accusations on Wednesday suggest that both Russia and Ukraine have continued their attacks on each other's energy facilities, a crucial aspect of the ceasefire’s terms.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence claimed that Ukrainian forces had launched drone and shelling attacks in the western Kursk region, cutting power to over 1,500 homes. This attack allegedly targeted key infrastructure, leaving several localities without electricity. Additionally, in the Russian-controlled part of Ukraine's Luhansk region, a Ukrainian drone strike hit a gas distribution station, severely disrupting the gas supply for over 11,000 customers in the area around Svatove.

In response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Russia of breaking the ceasefire. He claimed that Russian drone strikes had targeted an energy substation in Ukraine’s Sumy region, while artillery fire had damaged a power line in the Dnipropetrovsk region, leaving nearly 4,000 consumers without power even as Ukraine increasingly leans on electricity imports to stabilize the grid. Ukraine's accusations painted a picture of continued Russian aggression against critical energy infrastructure, a strategy that had previously been a hallmark of Russia’s broader military operations in the war.

The U.S. had brokered the energy truce as a potential stepping stone toward a more comprehensive ceasefire agreement. However, the repeated violations raise questions about the truce’s viability and the broader prospects for peace between Russia and Ukraine. Both sides are accusing each other of undermining the agreement, which had already been delicate due to previous suspicions and mistrust. In particular, the U.S. administration, led by President Donald Trump, has expressed impatience with the slow progress in moving toward a lasting peace, amid debates over U.S. national energy security priorities.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov defended Russia’s stance, emphasizing that President Vladimir Putin had shown a commitment to peace by agreeing to the energy truce, despite what he termed as daily Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure. He reiterated that Russia would continue to cooperate with the U.S., even though the Ukrainian strikes were ongoing. This perspective suggests that Russia remains committed to the truce but views Ukraine’s actions as violations that could potentially derail efforts to reach a more comprehensive ceasefire.

On the other hand, President Zelensky argued that Russia was not adhering to the terms of the ceasefire. He urged the U.S. to take a stronger stance against Russia, including increasing sanctions on Moscow as punishment for its violations. Zelensky’s call for heightened sanctions is a continuation of his efforts to pressure international actors, particularly the U.S. and European countries, to provide greater energy security support for Ukraine’s struggle and to hold Russia accountable for its actions.

The ceasefire’s fragility is also reflected in the differing views between Ukraine and Russia on what constitutes a successful resolution. Ukraine had proposed a full 30-day ceasefire, but President Putin declined, raising concerns about monitoring and verifying compliance with the terms. This disagreement suggests that both sides are not entirely aligned on what a peaceful resolution should look like and how it can be realistically achieved.

The situation is complicated by the broader context of the war, which has now dragged on for over three years. The conflict has seen significant casualties, immense destruction, and deep geopolitical ramifications. Both countries are heavily reliant on their energy infrastructures, making any attack on these systems not only a military tactic but also a form of economic warfare. Energy resources, including electricity and natural gas, have become central to the ongoing conflict, with both sides using them to exert pressure on the other amid Europe's deepening energy crisis that reverberates beyond the battlefield.

As of now, it remains unclear whether the recent violations of the energy ceasefire will lead to a breakdown of the truce or whether the United States will intervene further to restore compliance, even as Ukraine prepares for winter amid energy challenges. The situation remains fluid, and the international community continues to closely monitor the developments. The U.S., which played a central role in brokering the energy ceasefire, has made it clear that it expects both sides to uphold the terms of the agreement and work toward a more permanent cessation of hostilities.

The continued accusations between Russia and Ukraine regarding the breach of the energy ceasefire underscore the challenges of negotiating peace in such a complex and entrenched conflict. While both sides claim to be upholding their commitments, the reality on the ground suggests that reaching a full and lasting peace will require much more than temporary truces. The international community, particularly the U.S., will likely continue to push for stronger actions to enforce compliance and to prevent the conflict from further escalating. The outcome of this dispute will have significant implications for both countries and the broader European energy landscape and security landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canadian Softwood Lumber Tariffs challenge British Columbia's forestry sector, strain U.S.-Canada trade, and risk redirecting critical minerals and energy resources, threatening North American supply chains, manufacturing, and energy security across integrated markets.

Key Points

Duties imposed by the U.S. on Canadian lumber, affecting BC forestry, trade flows, and North American energy security.

✅ U.S. duties strain BC forestry and cross-border supply chains

✅ Risks redirecting critical minerals and energy exports

✅ Tariff rollback could bolster North American energy security

British Columbia Premier David Eby has raised concerns that U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber are prompting the province to redirect its critical minerals and energy resources, while B.C. challenges Alberta's electricity export restrictions domestically, away from the United States. In a recent interview, Eby emphasized the broader implications of these tariffs, suggesting they could undermine North American energy security and put electricity exports at risk across the border.

Since 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce has imposed tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber imports, alleging that Canadian producers benefit from unfair subsidies. These duties have been a persistent source of tension between the two nations, coinciding with Canadian support for energy and mineral tariffs and significantly impacting British Columbia's forestry sector—a cornerstone of the province's economy.

Premier Eby highlighted that the financial strain imposed by these tariffs not only jeopardizes the Canadian forestry industry but also has unintended repercussions for the United States. He pointed out that the economic challenges faced by Canadian producers might lead them to seek alternative markets for their critical minerals and energy resources, as tariff threats boost support for Canadian energy projects domestically, thereby reducing the supply to the U.S. British Columbia is endowed with an abundance of critical minerals essential for various industries, including technology and defense.

The potential redirection of these resources could have significant consequences for American industries that depend on a stable and affordable supply of critical minerals and energy. Eby suggested that the tariffs might incentivize Canadian producers to explore other international markets, even as experts advise against cutting Quebec's energy exports amid the tariff dispute, diminishing the availability of these vital resources to the U.S.

In light of these concerns, Premier Eby has advocated for a reassessment of the tariffs, urging a more cooperative approach between Canada and the United States. He contends that eliminating the tariffs would be mutually beneficial, aligning with views that Biden is better for Canada's energy sector and cross-border collaboration, ensuring a consistent supply of critical resources and fostering economic growth in both countries.

The issue of U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber remains complex and contentious, with far-reaching implications for trade relations and resource distribution between the two nations. As discussions continue, stakeholders on both sides of the border are closely monitoring the situation, noting that Ford has threatened to cut U.S. electricity exports amid trade tensions, recognizing the importance of collaboration in addressing shared economic and security challenges.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Energy-Only Electricity Market faces capacity market debate, AESO price cap review, and coal-to-gas shifts by TransAlta and Capital Power, balancing reliability with volatility as investment signals evolve across Alberta's grid.

Key Points

An energy market paying generators only for electricity sold, with AESO oversight and a price cap guiding new capacity.

✅ AESO reviewing $999 per MW-h wholesale price cap.

✅ UCP retained energy-only; capacity market plan cancelled.

✅ TransAlta and Capital Power shift to coal-to-gas.

The Kenney government’s decision to cancel the redesign of Alberta’s electricity system to a capacity market won’t side-track two of the province’s largest power generators from converting coal-fired facilities to burn natural gas as part of Alberta’s shift from coal to cleaner energy overall.

But other changes could be coming to the province’s existing energy-only electricity market — including the alteration of the $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) wholesale price cap in Alberta.

The heads of TransAlta Corp. and Capital Power Corp. are proceeding with strategies to convert existing coal-fired power generating facilities to use natural gas in the coming years.

Calgary-based TransAlta first announced in 2017 that it would make the switch, as the NDP government was in the midst of overhauling the electricity sector and wind generation began to outpace coal in the province.

At the time, the Notley government planned to phase out coal-fired power by 2030, even as Alberta moved to retire coal by 2023 in practice, and shift Alberta into an electricity capacity market in 2021.

Such a move, made on the recommendation of the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), was intended to reduce price volatility and ensure system reliability.

Under the energy-only market, generators receive payments for electricity produced and sold into the grid. In a capacity market, generators are also paid for having power available on demand, regardless of how often they sell energy into the provincial grid.

The UCP government decided last month to ditch plans for a capacity market after consulting with the sector, saying it would be better for consumers.

On a conference call, TransAlta CEO Dawn Farrell said the company will convert coal-fired generating plants to burn gas, although it may alter the mix between simple conversions and switching to so-called “hybrid” plants.

(A hybrid conversion is a larger and more-expensive switch, as it includes installing a new gas turbine and heat-recovery steam generator, but it creates a highly efficient combined cycle unit.)

“Our view is fundamentally that carbon will be priced over the next 20 years no matter what,” she said Friday.

“We cannot get off coal fast enough in this company, and gas right now in Alberta is extremely inexpensive…

“So our coal-to-gas strategy is completely predicated on our belief that it’s not smart to be in carbon-intensive fuels for the future.”

Elsewhere in Canada, the Stop the Shock campaign has advocated for reviving coal power, underscoring ongoing policy debates.

The company said it’s planning the coal-to-gas conversion and re-powering of some or all of the units at its Keephills and Sundance facilities to gas-fired generation sometime between 2020 and 2023.

Similarly, Capital Power CEO Brian Vaasjo said the Edmonton-based company is moving ahead with a project that will allow it to burn both coal and natural gas at its Genesee generating station, even as Ontario’s energy minister sought to explore a halt to natural gas generation elsewhere.

In June, the company announced it would spend an estimated $50 million between 2019 and 2021 to allow it to use gas at the facility.

“What we’re doing is going to be dual fuel, so we will be able to operate 100 per cent natural gas or 100 per cent coal and everything in between,” Vaasjo said in an interview.

“You can expect to see we will be burning coal in the winter when natural gas prices are high, and we will be burning natural gas in summer when gas prices are real low.”

The transition comes as the government’s decision to stick with the energy-only market has been welcomed by players in the industry, and as Alberta's electricity future increasingly leans on wind resources.

A study by electricity consultancy EDC Associates found the capacity market would result in consumers paying an extra $1.4 billion in direct costs in 2021-22, as it required more generation to come online earlier than expected.

These additional costs would have accumulated to $10 billion by 2030, said EDC chief executive Duane-Reid Carlson.

For Capital Power, the decision to stick with the current system makes the province more investable in the future. Vaasjo said there was great uncertainty about the transition to a capacity market, and the possibility of rules shifting further.

Officials with Enmax Corp. said the city-owned utility would not have invested in future generation under the proposed capacity market.

“There is no short-term need (today) for new generation, so we’re just looking at the market and saying, ‘OK, as it evolves, we will see what happens,’” said Enmax vice-president Tim Boston.

Sticking with the energy-only market doesn’t mean Alberta will keep the existing rules.

In a July 25 letter, Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage directed AESO chair Will Bridge to examine if changes to the existing market are needed and report back by July 2020.

AESO, which manages the power grid, has been asked to investigate whether the current price cap of $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) should be changed.

The price ceiling hasn’t been altered since the energy-only market was implemented by the Klein government about two decades ago.

While allowing prices to go higher would increase volatility, reflecting lessons from Europe’s power crisis about scarcity pricing, during periods of rising demand and limited supply, it would send a signal to generators when investment in new generation is required, said Kent Fellows, a research associate at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

“Keeping the price (cap) too low could end up costing us more in the long run,” he said.

In a 2016 report, AESO said the province examined raising the price cap to $5,000 per MW-h, but “determined that it was unlikely to be successful in attracting investment due to increased price volatility.”

However, the amount of future generation that will be required in Alberta has been scaled back by the province.

In the United States, the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) allows wholesale power prices in the state to climb to a cap of $9,000 per megawatt hours as demand rises — as it did Tuesday in the midst of a heat wave, according to Bloomberg.

Jim Wachowich, legal counsel for the Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta, said while few players are exposed to spot electricity prices, he has yet to be convinced raising the cap would be good for Albertans.

“Someone has to show me the evidence, and I suspect that’s what the minister has asked the AESO to do,” he said.

Generators say they believe some tinkering is needed to the energy-only market to ensure new generation is built when it’s required.

“The No. 1 change that the government has to … think about is in pricing,” added Farrell.

“If you don’t have enough of a price signal in an energy-only market to attract new capital, you won’t get new capital — and you’ll run up against the wall.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Pickering Nuclear Closure will shift supply to natural gas, raising emissions as the electricity grid manages nuclear refurbishment, IESO planning, clean power imports, and new wind, solar, and storage to support electrification.

Key Points

Ontario will close Pickering and rely on natural gas, increasing emissions while other nuclear units are refurbished.

✅ 14% of Ontario electricity supplied by Pickering now

✅ Natural gas use rises; grid emissions projected up 375%

✅ IESO warns gas phaseout by 2030 risks blackouts, costs

The Ontario government will not reconsider plans to close the Pickering nuclear station and instead stop-gap the consequent electricity shortfall with natural gas-generated power in a move that will, as an analysis of Ontario's grid shows, hike the province’s greenhouse gas emissions substantially in the coming years.

In a report released this week, a nuclear advocacy group urged Ontario to refurbish the aging facility east of Toronto, which is set to be shuttered in phases in 2024 and 2025, prompting debate over a clean energy plan after Pickering as the closure nears. The closure of Pickering, which provides 14 per cent of the province’s annual electricity supply, comes at the same time as Ontario’s other two nuclear stations are undergoing refurbishment and operating at reduced capacity.

Canadians for Nuclear Energy, which is largely funded by power workers' unions, argued closing the 50-year-old facility will result in job losses, emissions increases, heightened reliance on imported natural gas and an electricity supply gap across Ontario.

But Palmer Lockridge, spokesperson for the provincial energy minister, said further extending Pickering’s lifespan isn’t on the table.

“As previously announced in 2020, our government is supporting Ontario Power Generation’s plan to safely extend the life of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station through the end of 2025,” said Lockridge in an emailed response to questions.

“Going forward, we are ensuring a reliable, affordable and clean electricity system for decades to come. That’s why we put a plan in place that ensures we are prepared for the emerging energy needs following the closure of Pickering, and as a result of our government’s success in growing and electrifying the province’s economy.”

The Progressive Conservative government under Premier Doug Ford has invested heavily in electrification, sinking billions into electric vehicle and battery manufacturing and industries like steel-making to retool plants to run on electricity rather than coal, and exploring new large-scale nuclear plants to bolster baseload supply.

Natural gas now provides about seven per cent of the province’s energy, a piece of the pie that will rise significantly as nuclear energy dwindles. Emissions from Ontario’s electricity grid, which is currently one of the world’s cleanest with 94 per cent zero-emission power generation, are projected to rise a whopping 375 per cent as the province turns increasingly to natural gas generation. Those increases will effectively undo a third of the hard-won emissions reductions the province achieved by phasing out coal-fired power generation.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which manages Ontario’s grid, studied whether the province could phase out natural gas generation by 2030 and concluded that “would result in blackouts and hinder electrification” and increase average residential electricity costs by $100 per month.

The Ontario Clean Air Alliance, however, obtained draft documents from the electricity operator that showed it had studied, but not released publicly, other scenarios that involved phasing out natural gas without energy shortfalls, price hikes or increases in emissions.

The Ontario government will not reconsider plans to close the Pickering nuclear station and instead stop-gap the consequent electricity shortfall facing Ontario with natural gas-generated power in a move that will hike the province’s greenhouse gas emissions.

One model suggested increasing carbon taxes and imports of clean energy from other provinces could keep blackouts, costs and emissions at bay, while another involved increasing energy efficiency, wind generation and storage.

“By banning gas-fired electricity exports to the U.S., importing all the Quebec water power we can with the existing transmission lines and investing in energy efficiency and wind and solar and storage — do all those things and you can phase out gas-fired power and lower our bills,” said Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance.

The IESO has argued in response that the study of those scenarios was not complete and did not include many of the challenges associated with phasing out natural gas plants.

Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith asked the IESO to develop “an achievable pathway to zero-emissions in the electricity sector and evaluate a moratorium on new-build natural gas generation stations,” said his spokesperson. That report, an early look at halting gas power, is expected in November.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BC Hydro Customer Crisis Fund Surplus highlights unused grants, pilot program imbalance, and calls to reduce fees or expand eligibility. Ratepayers, regulators, and social agencies urge awareness, rebates, and aid for overdue electricity bills.

Key Points

A funding carryover from BC Hydro's crisis grants, sparking debate over fee reductions or more aid eligibility.

✅ $2.9M surplus from 25-cent monthly customer fee

✅ Only 2,250 grants issued; awareness and eligibility questioned

✅ Regulator may refund balance or adjust program design

BC Hydro is sitting on a surplus of about $2.9 million in its customer crisis fund, even as BC Hydro rates rise 3% across the province, leading to calls for the utility to reduce its take from the average customer or provide more money to those in need.

B.C. Liberal Energy Critic Greg Kyllo said if the imbalance continues in the year-old pilot program, amid a provincial rate freeze announced by the province, it’s time to cut the monthly 25 cent fee in half.

"If the grant requirement or the need in the province is going to remain where it is, they should look at rolling back the contribution level in the fund," he told CTV News Vancouver from Salmon Arm.

But social agencies who were part of the consultation around the fund in the beginning said it’s more likely that people in need don’t know about the fund and more time is necessary to get the word out.

"If they collect the money, then the program’s got to change to make sure more people are able to be helped," said Gudrun Langolf of the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of BC.

The customer crisis fund was started in spring 2018 to give people short-term relief when they can’t pay their electricity bills, especially as a $2 monthly hike pressures household budgets. Customers can apply to get a grant of up to $500 to keep the lights on, and up to $600 if electricity heats their homes.

The public utility took in about 25 cents per customer per month which added up to a revenue of $4.5 million in the year since the program started, BC Hydro confirmed to CTV News.

But the agency only gave out 2,250 grants totalling $850,000.

Administration costs added up around $750,000 – leaving the $2.9 million remaining.

The news will come as a welcome relief to those who suddenly struggle to pay their hydro bills, particularly as Alberta ratepayers are on the hook under a utility deferral program elsewhere in Canada.

Some people who come into Disability Alliance B.C. are often anxious and emotional when they’re suddenly unable to pay their bills, said Shar Saremi, an advocate there.

"I’ve had people crying. I’ve had people who have experienced a loss in the family," she said. "A lot of the time people are stressed out, anxious, really upset. They are looking for assistance, and they aren’t sure what is available for them."

She said people are only eligible if their bills are under $1,000, which could be cutting out the people who are most in need. And because the program is in its first year, it could be undersubscribed, she said.

"A lot of people don’t know about the program, don’t know how to apply, or what kind of assistance is out there," Saremi said.

The fund was established thanks to an order from the B.C. Utilities Commission, the utilities regulator in the province.

The pilot program is going to be examined by the regulator at the end of its first year.

"Any remaining balance in the account at the end of the pilot would be returned to residential ratepayers," says a BCUC fact sheet, as BC Hydro rates are set to rise 3.75% over two years. The decision on exactly what to do with the money hasn’t yet been made.

In Manitoba, a similar program is by donation, and in Newfoundland and Labrador a lump-sum credit was offered to bill payers in a separate initiative. That program raised about $200,000 from customers and $60,000 in other income. It spent $199,000 on grants to applicants, but lost about $20,000 a year.

In Ontario, private utilities are expected to raise 0.12 per cent of their revenue, and Hydro One reconnections have highlighted the stakes for nonpayment there. Across the province, those utilities gave out about $7.3 million in grants. Any unused funds in one year are rolled over to the following year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Toyota and Honda Moving e delivers hydrogen backup power via a fuel cell bus, portable batteries, and power exporters for disaster relief, emergency electricity, and grid outage support near charging stations and microgrids.

Key Points

A hydrogen mobile power system using a fuel cell bus and batteries to supply emergency electricity during disasters.

✅ Fuel cell bus outputs up to 18 kW, 454 kWh capacity

✅ Portable batteries and power exporter deliver site power

✅ Supports disaster relief near hydrogen charging stations

Without the uninterrupted supply of power and electricity, modern economies would be unable to function. A blackout can impact everything from transport to health care, communication, and even water supplies, as seen in a near-blackout in Japan that strained the grid. It is one of the key security concerns for every government on earth, a point underscored by Fatih Birol on electricity options during the pandemic, and the growth in the market for backup power reflects that fact. In 2018, the global Backup Power market was $14.9 billion and is expected to reach $22 billion by the end of 2025, growing at a CAGR of 5.0 percent between 2019 and 2025.

It is against this backdrop that Toyota and Honda have come up with a new and innovative solution to providing electricity during disasters. The two transport giants have launched a mobile power generation system that consists of a fuel cell bus that can carry a large amount of hydrogen, aligned with Japan's hydrogen energy system efforts underway, portable external power output devices, and portable batteries to disaster zones. The system, which is called ‘Moving e’ includes Toyota’s charging station fuel cell bus, Honda’s power exporter 9000 portable external power output device, two types of Honda’s portable batteries, and a Honda Mobile Power Pack Charge & Supply Concept charger/discharger for MPP. 

In simple terms, the bus would drive to a disaster zone, and while other approaches such as gravity energy storage are advancing, the portable batteries and power output devices would be used to extract electricity from the fuel cell bus and provide it wherever it is needed. The bus itself can generate 454kWh and has a maximum output of 18kW. That is more than enough energy to supply electricity for large indoor areas such as an evacuation area. The bus is also fitted with space for people to nap or rest during a disaster.

The two companies plan to test the effectiveness of the Moving e at multiple municipalities and businesses. These locations will have to be within 100km of a hydrogen station that is capable of refueling the bus. If the bus has to drive 200km, then its electricity supply to the disaster zone would drop from 490kwh to 240kWh. While there aren’t currently enough hydrogen stations to make this a realistic scenario for all disaster zones, especially as countries push for hydrogen-ready power plants in Germany and related infrastructure, hydrogen is growing increasingly competitive with gasoline and diesel.

While gas generators are still considered more reliable and generally cheaper than backup batteries for home use, cleaner backup power is growing increasingly popular, and novel storage like power-to-gas in Europe is also advancing across grids. This latest development by Toyota and Honda is another step forward for the battery and fuel cell industry, with initiatives like PEM hydrogen R&D in China accelerating progress, – especially considering the meteoric rise of hydrogen energy in recent years.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News