Octillion advances efforts to generate power from moving vehicles

Hydro One Avista takeover rejection signals Washington regulators blocking a utility acquisition over governance risk, EPS dilution, and balance sheet impact, as investors applaud share price gains and a potential US$103M break fee.

Key Points

A regulator-led block of Hydro One's Avista bid, citing EPS dilution, balance sheet risk, and governance concerns.

✅ Washington denies approval; Idaho, Oregon decisions pending.

✅ EPS dilution avoided; balance sheet strength preserved.

✅ Shares rise 5.7%; US$103M break fee if deal collapses.

Opposition politicians may not like it but investors are applauding the rejection of Hydro One Ltd.'s $6.7-billion Avista takeover of U.S.-based utility Avista Corp.

Shares in the power company controlled by the Ontario government, which has also proposed a bill redesign to simplify statements, closed at $21.53, up $1.16 or 5.7 per cent, on the Toronto Stock Exchange on Thursday.

On Wednesday, Washington State regulators said they would not allow Ontario's largest utility to buy Avista over concerns about political risk that the provincial government, which owns 47 per cent of Hydro One's shares, might meddle in Avista's operations.

Financial analysts had predicted investors would welcome the news because the deal, announced in July 2017, would have eroded earnings per share and weakened Hydro One's balance sheet.

"The Washington regulator's denial of Avista is a positive development for the shares, in our opinion," said analyst Ben Pham of BMO Capital Markets in a report on Wednesday.

"While this may sound odd, we note that the Avista deal is expected to be EPS dilutive and result in a weaker balance sheet for (Hydro One). Not acquiring Avista and refocusing its attention on its core Ontario franchise ... along with related interprovincial arrangements such as the Ontario-Quebec electricity deal under discussion would likely be viewed positively if the deal ultimately breaks."

Decisions are yet to come from Idaho and Oregon state regulators, but Washington was probably the most important as the state contains customers making up about 60 per cent of Avista's rate base, Pham said.

He pointed out that a US$103-million break fee is to be paid to Avista if the deal collapses due to a failure to obtain regulatory approval.

CIBC analyst Robert Catellier raised his 12-month Hydro One target price by 25 cents and said many shareholders will feel "relieved" that the deal had failed.

He warned that the company's earnings power could deteriorate as the province seeks to reduce power bills by 12 per cent, despite an Ontario-Quebec hydro deal that may not lower costs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. Russian Uranium Import Ban reshapes nuclear fuel supply, bolstering energy security, domestic enrichment, and sanctions policy while diversifying reactor-grade uranium sources and supply chains through allies, waivers, and funding to sustain utilities and reliability.

Key Points

A U.S. law halting Russian uranium imports to boost energy security diversify nuclear fuel and revive U.S. enrichment.

✅ Cuts Russian revenue; reduces geopolitical risk.

✅ Funds U.S. enrichment; supports reactor fuel supply.

✅ Enables waivers to prevent utility shutdowns.

In a move aimed at reducing reliance on Russia and fostering domestic energy security for the long term, the United States has banned imports of Russian uranium, a critical component of nuclear fuel. This decision, signed into law by President Biden in May 2024, marks a significant shift in the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain and has far-reaching economic and geopolitical implications.

For decades, Russia has been a major supplier of enriched uranium, a processed form of uranium used to power nuclear reactors. The U.S. relies on Russia for roughly a quarter of its enriched uranium needs, feeding the nation's network of 94 nuclear reactors operated by utilities which generate nearly 20% of the country's electricity. This dependence has come under scrutiny in recent years, particularly following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The ban on Russian uranium is a multifaceted response. First and foremost, it aims to cripple a key revenue stream for the Russian government. Uranium exports are a significant source of income for Russia, and by severing this economic tie, the U.S. hopes to weaken Russia's financial capacity to wage war.

Second, the ban serves as a national energy security measure. Relying on a potentially hostile nation for such a critical resource creates vulnerabilities. The possibility of Russia disrupting uranium supplies, either through political pressure or in the event of a wider conflict, is a major concern. Diversifying the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain mitigates this risk.

Third, the ban is intended to revitalize the domestic uranium mining and enrichment industry, building on earlier initiatives such as Trump's uranium order announced previously. The U.S. has historically been a major uranium producer, but environmental concerns and competition from cheaper foreign sources led to a decline in domestic production. The ban, coupled with $2.7 billion in federal funding allocated to expand domestic uranium enrichment capacity, aims to reverse this trend.

The transition away from Russian uranium won't be immediate. The law includes a grace period until mid-August 2024, and waivers can be granted to utilities facing potential shutdowns if alternative suppliers aren't readily available. Finding new sources of enriched uranium will require forging partnerships with other uranium-producing nations like Kazakhstan, Canada on minerals cooperation, and Australia.

The long-term success of this strategy hinges on several factors. First, successfully ramping up domestic uranium production will require overcoming regulatory hurdles and addressing environmental concerns, alongside nuclear innovation to modernize the fuel cycle. Second, securing reliable alternative suppliers at competitive prices is crucial, and supportive policy frameworks such as the Nuclear Innovation Act now in law can help. Finally, ensuring the continued safe and efficient operation of existing nuclear reactors is paramount.

The ban on Russian uranium is a bold move with significant economic and geopolitical implications. While challenges lie ahead, the potential benefits of a more secure and domestically sourced nuclear fuel supply chain are undeniable. The success of this initiative will be closely watched not only by the U.S. but also by other nations seeking to lessen their dependence on Russia for critical resources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

IESO Fictitious Demand Error inflated HOEP in the Ontario electricity market, after embedded generation was mis-modeled; the OEB says double-counted load lifted wholesale prices and shifted costs via the Global Adjustment.

Key Points

An IESO modeling flaw that double-counted load, inflating HOEP and charges in Ontario's wholesale market.

✅ Double-counted unmetered load from embedded generation

✅ Inflated HOEP; shifted costs via Global Adjustment

✅ OEB flagged transparency; exporters paid more

For almost a year, the operator of Ontario’s electricity system erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing prices to spike and hundreds of millions of dollars in extra charges to consumers, according to the provincial energy regulator.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) also failed to tell anyone about the error once it noticed and fixed it.

The error likely added between $450 million and $560 million to hourly rates and other charges before it was fixed in April 2017, according to a report released this month by the Ontario Energy Board’s Market Surveillance Panel.

It did this by adding as much as 220 MW of “fictitious demand” to the market starting in May 2016, when the IESO started paying consumers who reduced their demand for power during peak periods. This involved the integration of small-scale embedded generation (largely made up of solar) into its wholesale model for the first time.

The mistake assumed maximum consumption at such sites without meters, and double-counted that consumption.

The OEB said the mistake particularly hurt exporters and some end-users, who did not benefit from a related reduction of a global adjustment rate applicable to other customers.

“The most direct impact of the increase in HOEP (Hourly Ontario Energy Price) was felt by Ontario consumers and exporters of electricity, who paid an artificially high HOEP, to the benefit of generators and importers,” the OEB said.

The mix-up did not result in an equivalent increase in total system costs, because changes to the HOEP are offset by inverse changes to a electricity cost allocation mechanism such as the Global Adjustment rate, the OEB noted.

A chart from the OEB's report shows the time of day when fictitious demand was added to the system, and its influence on hourly rates.

Peak time spikes
The OEB said that the fictitious demand “regularly inflated” the hourly price of energy and other costs calculated as a direct function of it.

For almost a year, Ontario's electricity system operator @IESO_Tweets erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing price spikes and hundreds of millions in charges to consumers, @OntEnergyBoard says. @5thEstate reports.

It estimated the average increase to the HOEP was as much as $4.50/MWh, but that price spikes, compounded by scheduled OEB rate changes, would have been much higher during busier times, such as the mid-morning and early evening.

“In times of tight supply, the addition of fictitious demand often had a dramatic inflationary impact on the HOEP,” the report said.

That meant on one summer evening in 2016 the hourly rate jumped to $1,619/MWh, it said, which was the fourth highest in the history of the Ontario wholesale electricity market.

“Additional demand is met by scheduling increasingly expensive supply, thus increasing the market price. In instances where supply is tight and the supply stack is steep, small increases in demand can cause significant increases in the market price.

The OEB questioned why, as of September this year, the IESO had failed to notify its customers or the broader public, amid a broader auditor-regulator dispute that drew political attention, about the mistake and its effect on prices.

“It's time for greater transparency on where electricity costs are really coming from,” said Sarah Buchanan, clean energy program manager at Environmental Defence.

“Ontario will be making big decisions in the coming years about whether to keep our electricity grid clean, or burn more fossil fuels to keep the lights on,” she added. “These decisions need to be informed by the best possible evidence, and that can't happen if critical information is hidden.”

In a response to the OEB report on Monday, the IESO said its own initial analysis found that the error likely pushed wholesale electricity payments up by $225 million. That calculation assumed that the higher prices would have changed consumer behaviour, while upcoming electricity auctions were cited as a way to lower costs, it said.

In response to questions, a spokesperson said residential and small commercial consumers would have saved $11 million in electricity costs over the 11-month period, even as a typical bill increase loomed province-wide, while larger consumers would have paid an extra $14 million.

That is because residential and small commercial customers pay some costs via time-of-use rates, including a temporary recovery rate framework, the IESO said, while larger customers pay them in a way that reflects their share of overall electricity use during the five highest demand hours of the year.

The IESO said it could not compensate those that had paid too much, given the complexity of the system, and that the modelling error did not have a significant impact on ratepayers.

While acknowledging the effects of the mistake would vary among its customers, the IESO said the net market impact was less than $10 million, amid ongoing legislation to lower electricity rates in Ontario.

It said it would improve testing of its processes prior to deployment and agreed to publicly disclose errors that significantly affect the wholesale market in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nuclear Waste Corrosion accelerates as stainless steel, glass, and ceramics interact in aqueous conditions, driving localized corrosion in repositories like Yucca Mountain, according to Nature Materials research on high-level radioactive waste storage.

Key Points

Degradation of waste forms and canisters from water-driven chemistry, causing accelerated, localized corrosion in storage.

✅ Stainless steel-glass contact triggers severe localized attack

✅ Ceramics and steel co-corrosion observed under aqueous conditions

✅ Yucca Mountain-like chemistry accelerates waste form degradation

The materials the United States and other countries plan to use to store high-level nuclear waste, even as utilities expand carbon-free electricity portfolios, will likely degrade faster than anyone previously knew because of the way those materials interact, new research shows.

The findings, published today in the journal Nature Materials (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-019-0579-x), show that corrosion of nuclear waste storage materials accelerates because of changes in the chemistry of the nuclear waste solution, and because of the way the materials interact with one another.

"This indicates that the current models may not be sufficient to keep this waste safely stored," said Xiaolei Guo, lead author of the study and deputy director of Ohio State's Center for Performance and Design of Nuclear Waste Forms and Containers, part of the university's College of Engineering. "And it shows that we need to develop a new model for storing nuclear waste."

Beyond waste storage, options like carbon capture technologies are being explored to reduce atmospheric CO2 alongside nuclear energy.

The team's research focused on storage materials for high-level nuclear waste -- primarily defense waste, the legacy of past nuclear arms production. The waste is highly radioactive. While some types of the waste have half-lives of about 30 years, others -- for example, plutonium -- have a half-life that can be tens of thousands of years. The half-life of a radioactive element is the time needed for half of the material to decay.

The United States currently has no disposal site for that waste; according to the U.S. General Accountability Office, it is typically stored near the nuclear power plants where it is produced. A permanent site has been proposed for Yucca Mountain in Nevada, though plans have stalled. Countries around the world have debated the best way to deal with nuclear waste; only one, Finland, has started construction on a long-term repository for high-level nuclear waste.

But the long-term plan for high-level defense waste disposal and storage around the globe is largely the same, even as the U.S. works to sustain nuclear power for decarbonization efforts. It involves mixing the nuclear waste with other materials to form glass or ceramics, and then encasing those pieces of glass or ceramics -- now radioactive -- inside metallic canisters. The canisters then would be buried deep underground in a repository to isolate it.

At the generation level, regulators are advancing EPA power plant rules on carbon capture to curb emissions while nuclear waste strategies evolve.

In this study, the researchers found that when exposed to an aqueous environment, glass and ceramics interact with stainless steel to accelerate corrosion, especially of the glass and ceramic materials holding nuclear waste.

In parallel, the electrical grid's reliance on SF6 insulating gas has raised warming concerns across Europe.

The study qualitatively measured the difference between accelerated corrosion and natural corrosion of the storage materials. Guo called it "severe."

"In the real-life scenario, the glass or ceramic waste forms would be in close contact with stainless steel canisters. Under specific conditions, the corrosion of stainless steel will go crazy," he said. "It creates a super-aggressive environment that can corrode surrounding materials."

To analyze corrosion, the research team pressed glass or ceramic "waste forms" -- the shapes into which nuclear waste is encapsulated -- against stainless steel and immersed them in solutions for up to 30 days, under conditions that simulate those under Yucca Mountain, the proposed nuclear waste repository.

Those experiments showed that when glass and stainless steel were pressed against one another, stainless steel corrosion was "severe" and "localized," according to the study. The researchers also noted cracks and enhanced corrosion on the parts of the glass that had been in contact with stainless steel.

Part of the problem lies in the Periodic Table. Stainless steel is made primarily of iron mixed with other elements, including nickel and chromium. Iron has a chemical affinity for silicon, which is a key element of glass.

The experiments also showed that when ceramics -- another potential holder for nuclear waste -- were pressed against stainless steel under conditions that mimicked those beneath Yucca Mountain, both the ceramics and stainless steel corroded in a "severe localized" way.

Other Ohio State researchers involved in this study include Gopal Viswanathan, Tianshu Li and Gerald Frankel.

This work was funded in part by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science.

Meanwhile, U.S. monitoring shows potent greenhouse gas declines confirming the impact of control efforts across the energy sector.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Ecofiscal Commission EV Policy Shift examines carbon pricing limits, endorsing signal boosters like subsidies, EV incentives, and coal bans, amid advisory changes and public pushback, to accelerate emissions cuts beyond market-based taxes and regulations.

Key Points

An updated stance recognizing carbon pricing limits and backing EV incentives, subsidies, and rules to reduce emissions.

✅ Carbon pricing plus subsidies, EV incentives

✅ Advisory shift; Jack Mintz departs

✅ Focus on emissions cuts, coal power bans

Something strange happened at the Ecofiscal Commission recently. Earlier this month, the carbon-tax advocacy group featured on its website as one of its advisers the renowned Canadian economist (and FP Comment columnist) Jack M. Mintz. The other day, suddenly and without fanfare, Mintz was gone from the website, and the commission’s advisory board.

Advisers come and advisers go, of course, but it turns out there was an impetus for Mintz’s departure. The Ecofiscal Commission in its latest report, dropped just before Canada Day, seemingly shifted from its position that carbon prices were so excellent at mimicking market forces that the tax could repeal and replace virtually the entire vast expensive gallimaufry of subsidies, caps, rules and regulations that are costing Canada a fortune in business and bureaucrats. As some Ecofiscal commissioners wrote just a few months ago, policies that “dictate specific technologies or methods for reducing emissions constrain private choice and increase costs” and were a bad idea.

But, in this latest report, the commission is now musing about the benefits of carbon-tax “signal boosters”: that is, EV subsidies and rules to, for instance, get people to start buying electric vehicles (EVs), as well as bans on coal-fired power. “Even well designed carbon pricing can have limitations,” rationalized the commission. Mintz said he had “misgivings” about the change of tack. He decided it best if he focus his advisory energies elsewhere.

It’s hard to blame the commission for falling like everyone else for the electric-car mania that’s sweeping the nation and the world. Electric cars offer a sexiness that dreary old carbon taxes can never hope to match — especially in light of a new Angus Reid poll last week that showed the majority of Canadians now want governments to shelve any plans for carbon taxes.

So far, because nobody’s really driving these miracle machines, said mania has been limited to breathless news reports about how the electric-vehicle revolution is about to rock our world. EVs comprise just two-tenths of a per cent of all passenger vehicles in North America, despite the media’s endless hype and efforts of green-obsessed governments to cover much of the price tag, like Ontario’s $14,000 rebate for Tesla buyers. In Europe, where virtue-signalling urban environmentalism is the coolest, they’re not feeling the vehicular electricity much more: EVs account for barely one per cent of personal vehicles in France, the U.K. and Germany. When Hong Kong cancelled Tesla rebates in April, sales fell to zero.

Going by the ballyhoo, you’d think EVs were at an inflection point and an unstoppable juggernaut. But it’s one that has yet to even get started. In his 2011 State of the Union address, then president Barack Obama predicted one million electric cars on the road by 2015. Four years later, there wasn’t even a third that many. California offered so many different subsidies for electric vehicles that low-income families could get rebates of up to US$13,500, but it still isn’t even close to reaching its target of having zero-emission vehicles make up 15 per cent of California auto sales by 2025, being stuck at three per cent since 2014. Ontario’s Liberal government last year announced to much laughter its plan to ensure that every family would have at least one zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) by 2024, and Quebec made a plan to make ZEVs worth 15.5 per cent of sales by 2020, while Ottawa’s 2035 EV mandate attracts criticism too. Let’s see how that’s going: Currently, ZEVs make up 0.16 per cent of new vehicle sales in Ontario and 0.38 per cent in Quebec.

The latest sensational but bogus EV news out last week was France’s government announcing the “end of the sale of gasoline and diesel cars by 2040,” and Volvo apparently announcing that as of 2019, all its models would be “electric.” Both announcements made international headlines. Both are baloney. France provided no actual details about this plan (will it literally become a crime to sell a gasoline car? Will hybrids, run partly on gasoline, be allowed?), but more importantly, as automotive writer Ed Wiseman pointed out in The Guardian, a lot will happen in technology and automotive use over the next 23 years that France has no way to predict, with changes in self-driving cars, public car-sharing and fuel technologies. Imagine making rules for today’s internet back in 1994.

Volvo, meanwhile, looked to be recycling and repackaging years-old news to seize on today’s infatuation with electric vehicles to burnish its now Chinese-owned brand. Since 2010, Volvo’s plan has been to focus on engines that were partly electric, with electric turbochargers, but still based on gasoline. Volvo doesn’t actually have an all-electric model, but the gasoline-swigging engine of its popular XC90 SUV is, partly, electrical. When Volvo said all its models would in two years be “electric,” it meant this kind of engine, not that it was phasing out the internal-combustion gasoline engine. But that is what it wanted reporters to think, and judging by all the massive and inaccurate coverage, it worked.

The real story being missed is just how pathetic things look right now for electric cars. Gasoline prices in the U.S. turned historically cheap in 2015 and stayed cheap, icing demand for gasless cars. Tesla, whose founder’s self-promotion had made the niche carmaker magically more valuable than powerhouses like Ford and GM, haemorrhaged US$12 billion in market value last week after tepid sales figures brought some investors back to Earth, even as the company’s new Model 3 began rolling off the line.

Not helping is that environmental claims about environmental cars are falling apart. In June, Tesla was rocked by a controversial Swedish study that found that making one of its car batteries released as much CO2 as eight years of gasoline-powered driving. And Bloomberg reported last week on a study by Chinese engineers that found that electric vehicles, because of battery manufacturing and charging by fossil-fuel-powered electricity sources, emit 50-per-cent more carbon than do internal-combustion engines. Still, the electric-vehicle hype not only continues unabated, it gets bigger and louder every day. If some car company figures out how to harness it, we’d finally have a real automotive revolution on our hands.

Kevin Libin, Financial Post

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Duke Energy Clean Energy Strategy targets smart grid upgrades, wind and solar expansion, efficient gas, and high-reliability nuclear, cutting CO2, boosting decarbonization, and advancing energy efficiency and reliability for the Carolinas.

Key Points

A plan investing in smart grids, renewables, gas, and nuclear to cut CO2 and enhance reliability and efficiency by 2030.

✅ US$25bn smart grid upgrades; US$11bn renewables and gas

✅ 40% CO2 reduction and >80% low-/zero-carbon generation by 2030

✅ 2017 nuclear fleet 95.64% capacity factor; ~90 TWh carbon-free

The US power group Duke Energy plans to invest US$25bn on grid modernization over the 2017-2026 period, including the implementation of smart grid technologies to cope with the development of renewable energies, along with US$11bn on the expansion of renewable (wind and solar) and gas-fired power generation capacities.

The company will modernize its fleet and expects more than 80% of its power generation mix to come from zero and lower CO2 emitting sources, aligning with nuclear and net-zero goals, by 2030. Its current strategy focuses on cutting down CO2 emissions by 40% by 2030. Duke Energy will also promote energy efficiency and expects cumulative energy savings - based on the expansion of existing programmes - to grow to 22 TWh by 2030, i.e. the equivalent to the annual usage of 1.8 million households.

#google#

Duke Energy’s 11 nuclear generating units posted strong operating performance in 2017, as U.S. nuclear costs hit a ten-year low, providing the Carolinas with nearly 90 billion kilowatt-hours of carbon-free electricity – enough to power more than 7 million homes.

Globally, China's nuclear program remains on a steady development track, underscoring broader industry momentum.

“Much of our 2017 success is due to our focus on safety and work efficiencies identified by our nuclear employees, along with ongoing emphasis on planning and executing refueling outages to increase our fleet’s availability for producing electricity,” said Preston Gillespie, Duke Energy chief nuclear officer.

Some of the nuclear fleet’s 2017 accomplishments include, as a new U.S. reactor comes online nationally:

• The 11 units achieved a combined capacity factor of 95.64 percent, second only to the fleet’s 2016 record of 95.72 percent, marking the 19th consecutive year of attaining a 90-plus percent capacity factor (a measure of reliability).
• The two units at Catawba Nuclear Station produced more than 19 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, and the single unit at Harris Nuclear Plant generated more than 8 billion kilowatt-hours, both setting 12-month records.
• Brunswick Nuclear Plant unit 2 achieved a record operating run.
• Both McGuire Nuclear Station units completed their shortest refueling outages ever and unit 1 recorded its longest operating run.
• Oconee Nuclear Station unit 2 achieved a fleet record operating run.

The Robinson Nuclear Plant team completed the station’s 30th refueling outage, which included a main generator stator replacement and other life-extension activities, well ahead of schedule.

“Our nuclear employees are committed to providing reliable, clean electricity every day for our Carolinas customers,” added Gillespie. “We are very proud of our team’s 2017 accomplishments and continue to look for additional opportunities to further enhance operations.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News