Museum features Kansas town that went green

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.

He said this would be the biggest acquisition of clean energy in Canada's history.

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.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Germany's Economic Downturn reflects an energy crisis, deindustrialization risks, export weakness, and manufacturing stress, amid Russia gas loss, IMF and EU recession forecasts, and debates over electricity price caps and green transition.

Key Points

An economic contraction from energy price shocks, export weakness, and bottlenecks in manufacturing and digitization.

✅ Energy shock after loss of cheap Russian gas

✅ Exports slump amid China slowdown and weak demand

✅ Policy gridlock on power price cap and permits

Germany went from envy of the world to the worst-performing major developed economy. What happened?

For most of this century, Germany racked up one economic success after another, dominating global markets for high-end products like luxury cars and industrial machinery, selling so much to the rest of the world that half the economy ran on exports.

Jobs were plentiful, the government’s financial coffers grew as other European countries drowned in debt, and books were written about what other countries could learn from Germany.

No longer. Now, Germany is the world’s worst-performing major developed economy, with both the International Monetary Fund and European Union expecting it to shrink this year.

It follows Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the loss of Moscow’s cheap Russian gas that underpinned industry — an unprecedented shock to Germany’s energy-intensive industries, long the manufacturing powerhouse of Europe.

The sudden underperformance by Europe’s largest economy has set off a wave of criticism, handwringing and debate about the way forward.

Germany risks “deindustrialization” as high energy costs and government inaction on other chronic problems threaten to send new factories and high-paying jobs elsewhere, said Christian Kullmann, CEO of major German chemical company Evonik Industries AG.

From his 21st-floor office in the west German town of Essen, Kullmann points out the symbols of earlier success across the historic Ruhr Valley industrial region: smokestacks from metal plants, giant heaps of waste from now-shuttered coal mines, a massive BP oil refinery and Evonik’s sprawling chemical production facility.

These days, the former mining region, where coal dust once blackened hanging laundry, is a symbol of the energy transition, as the power sector’s balancing act continues with wind turbines and green space.

The loss of cheap Russian natural gas needed to power factories “painfully damaged the business model of the German economy,” Kullmann told The Associated Press. “We’re in a situation where we’re being strongly affected — damaged — by external factors.”

After Russia cut off most of its gas to the European Union, spurring an energy crisis in the 27-nation bloc that had sourced 40% of the fuel from Moscow, the German government asked Evonik to turn to coal by keeping its 1960s coal-fired power plant running a few months longer.

The company is shifting away from the plant — whose 40-story smokestack fuels production of plastics and other goods — to two gas-fired generators that can later run on hydrogen amid plans to become carbon neutral by 2030 and following the nuclear phase-out of recent years.

One hotly debated solution: a government-funded cap on industrial electricity prices to get the economy through the renewable energy transition, amid an energy crisis that even saw a temporary nuclear extension to stabilize supply.

The proposal from Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck of the Greens Party has faced resistance from Chancellor Olaf Scholz, a Social Democrat, and pro-business coalition partner the Free Democrats. Environmentalists say it would only prolong reliance on fossil fuels, while others advocate a nuclear option to meet climate goals.

Kullmann is for it: “It was mistaken political decisions that primarily developed and influenced these high energy costs. And it can’t now be that German industry, German workers should be stuck with the bill.”

The price of gas is roughly double what it was in 2021, with a senior official arguing nuclear would do little to solve that gas issue, hurting companies that need it to keep glass or metal red-hot and molten 24 hours a day to make glass, paper and metal coatings used in buildings and cars.

A second blow came as key trade partner China experiences a slowdown after several decades of strong economic growth.

These outside shocks have exposed cracks in Germany’s foundation that were ignored during years of success, including lagging use of digital technology in government and business and a lengthy process to get badly needed renewable energy projects approved.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California income-based utility charges face bipartisan pushback as the PUC weighs fixed fees for PG&E, SDG&E, and Southern California Edison, reshaping rate design, electricity affordability, energy equity, and privacy amid proposed per-kWh reductions.

Key Points

PUC-approved fixed fees tied to household income for PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE, offset by lower per-kWh rates.

✅ Proposed fixed fees: $51 SCE, $73.31 SDG&E, $50.92 PG&E

✅ Critics warn admin, privacy, legal risks and higher bills for savers

✅ Backers say lower-income pay less; kWh rates cut ~33% in PG&E area

Efforts are being made across California's political landscape to derail a legislative initiative that introduced income-based utility charges for customers of Southern California Edison and other major utilities.

Legislators from both the Democratic and Republican parties have proposed bills aimed at nullifying the 2022 legislation that established a sliding scale for utility charges based on customer income, a decision made in a late-hour session and subsequently endorsed by Governor Gavin Newsom.

The plan, pending final approval from the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) — all of whose current members were appointed by Governor Newsom — would enable utilities like Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, and PG&E to apply new income-based charges as early as this July.

Among the state legislators pushing back against the income-based charge scheme are Democrats Jacqui Irwin and Marc Berman, along with Republicans Janet Nguyen, Kelly Seyarto, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Scott Wilk, Brian Dahle, Shannon Grove, and Roger Niello.

A cadre of specialists, including economist Ahmad Faruqui who has advised all three utilities implicated in the fee proposal, have outlined several concerns regarding the PUC's pending decision.

Faruqui and his colleagues argue that the proposed charges are excessively high in comparison to national standards, reflecting soaring electricity prices across the state, potentially leading to administrative challenges, legal disputes, and negative unintended outcomes, such as penalizing energy-conservative consumers.

Advocates for the income-based fee model, including The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the National Resources Defense Council, argue it would result in higher charges for wealthier consumers and reduced fees for those with lower incomes. They also believe that the utilities plan to decrease per kilowatt-hour rates as part of a broader rate structure review to balance out the new fees.

However, even supporters like TURN and the Natural Resources Defense Council acknowledge that the income-based fee model is not a comprehensive solution to making soaring electricity bills more affordable.

If implemented, California would have the highest income-based utility fees in the country, with averages far surpassing the national average of $11.15, as reported by EQ Research:

• Southern California Edison would charge $51.
• San Diego Gas & Electric would levy $73.31.
• PG&E would set fees at $50.92.

The proposal has raised concerns among state legislators about the additional financial burden on Californians already struggling with high electricity costs.

Critics highlight several practical challenges, including the PUC's task of assessing customers' income levels, a process fraught with privacy concerns, potential errors, and constitutional questions regarding access to tax information.

Economists have pointed out further complications, such as the difficulty in accurately assessing incomes for out-of-state property owners and the variability of customers' incomes over time.

The proposed income-based charges would differ by income bracket within the PG&E service area, for example, with lower-income households facing lower fixed charges and higher-income households facing higher charges, alongside a proposed 33% reduction in electricity rates to help mitigate the fixed charge impact.

Yet, the economists warn that most customers, particularly low-usage customers, could end up paying more, essentially rewarding higher consumption and penalizing efficiency.

This legislative approach, they caution, could inadvertently increase costs for moderate users across all income brackets, a sign of major changes to electric bills that could emerge, challenging the very goals it aims to achieve by promoting energy inefficiency.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Wind Turbine Cancer Claim debunked: Iowa Republican senators back wind energy as fact-checks and DOE research find no link between turbine noise and cancer, limited effects on property values, and manageable wildlife impacts.

Key Points

Claims that turbine noise causes cancer, dismissed by studies and officials as unsupported by evidence.

✅ Grassley and Ernst call the claim idiotic and ridiculous

✅ DOE studies find no cancer link; property impacts limited

✅ Wildlife impacts mitigated; climate change poses larger risks

President Donald Trump may not be a fan of wind turbines, as shown by his pledge to scrap offshore wind projects earlier, suggesting that the noise they produce may cause cancer, but Iowa's Republican senators are big fans of wind energy.

Sen. Chuck Grassley called Trump's cancer claim "idiotic." On Thursday, Sen. Joni Ernst called the statement "ridiculous."

"I would say it's ridiculous. It's ridiculous," Ernst said, according to WHO-TV.

She likened the claim that wind turbine noise causes cancer to the idea that church bells do the same.

"I have church bells that ring all the time across from my office here in D.C. and I know that noise doesn't give me cancer, otherwise I'd have 'church bell cancer,'" Ernst said, adding that she is "thrilled" to have wind energy generation in Iowa, which aligns with a quarter-million wind jobs forecast nationwide. "I don't know what the president is drawing from."

Trump has a history of degrading wind energy and wind turbines that dates back long before his Tuesday claim that turbines harm property values and cause cancer, and often overlooks Texas grid constraints that can force turbines offline at times.

Not only are wind farms disgusting looking, but even worse they are bad for people's health.

"Not only are wind farms disgusting looking, but even worse, they are bad for people's health," Trump tweeted back in 2012.

Repeated fact-checks have found no scientific evidence to support the claim that wind turbines and the noise they make can cause cancer. The White House has reportedly provided no evidence to support Trump's cancer claim when asked this week

"It just seems like every time you turn around there's another thing the president is saying -- wind power causes cancer, I associate myself with the remarks of Chairman Grassley -- it's an 'idiotic' statement," Pelosi said in her weekly news conference on Thursday.

The president made his latest claim about wind turbines in a speech on Tuesday at a Republican spring dinner, as the industry continued recovering from the COVID-19 crisis that hit solar and wind energy.

"If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75 percent in value -- and they say the noise causes cancer," Trump said Tuesday, swinging his arm in a circle and making a cranking sound to imitate the noise of windmill blades. "And of course it's like a graveyard for birds. If you love birds, you never want to walk under a windmill. It’s a sad, sad sight."

Wind turbines are not, in fact, proven to have widespread negative impacts on property values, according to the Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Information in the largest study done so far in the U.S., even as some warn that a solar ITC extension could be devastating for the wind market, and there is no peer-reviewed data to back up the claim that the noise causes cancer.

I am considered a world-class expert in tourism. When you say, 'Where is the expert and where is the evidence?' I say: I am the evidence.

It's true wildlife is affected by wind turbines -- particularly birds and bats, with research showing whooping cranes avoid turbines when selecting stopover sites. One study estimated between 140,000 and 328,000 birds are killed annually by collisions with turbines across the U.S. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated, however, that other human-related impacts also contribute to declines in population.

The wind industry works with biologists to find solutions to the impact of turbines on wildlife, and the Department of Energy awards grants each year to researchers addressing the issue, even as the sector faced pandemic investment risks in 2020. But, overall, scientists warn that climate change itself is a bigger threat to bird populations than wind turbines, according to the National Audobon Society.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "It just seems like every time you turn around, there's another thing. The president is saying wind power causes cancer. I associate myself with the remarks of Chairman Grassley; It's an 'idiotic' statement"

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario Nuclear Expansion aims to meet rising electricity demand and decarbonization goals, complementing renewables with energy storage, hydroelectric, and SMRs, while reducing natural gas reliance and safeguarding grid reliability across the province.

Key Points

A plan to add large nuclear capacity to meet demand, support renewables, cut gas reliance, and maintain grid reliability

✅ Adds firm, low-carbon baseload to complement renewables

✅ Reduces reliance on natural gas during peak and outages

✅ Requires public and Indigenous engagement on siting

Ontario is exploring the possibility of building new, large-scale nuclear plants in order to meet increasing demand for electricity and phase out natural gas generation.

A report late last year by the Independent Electricity System Operator found that the province could fully eliminate natural gas from the electricity system by 2050, starting with a moratorium in 2027, but it will require about $400 billion in capital spending and more generation including new, large-scale nuclear plants.

Decarbonizing the grid, in addition to new nuclear, will require more conservation efforts, more renewable energy sources and more wind and solar power sources and more energy storage, the report concluded.

The IESO said work should start now to assess the reliability of new and relatively untested technologies and fuels to replace natural gas, and to set up large, new generation sources such as nuclear plants and hydroelectric facilities.

The province has not committed to a natural gas moratorium or phase-out, or to building new nuclear facilities other than its small modular reactor plans, but it is now consulting on the prospect.

A document recently posted to the government’s environmental registry asks for input on how best to engage the public and Indigenous communities on the planning and location of new generation and storage facilities.

Building new nuclear plants is “one pathway” toward a fully electrified system, Energy Minister Todd Smith said in an interview.

“It’s a possibility, for sure, and that’s why we’re looking for the feedback from Ontarians,” he said. “We’re considering all of the next steps.”

Environmental groups such as Environmental Defence oppose new nuclear builds, as well as the continued reliance on natural gas.

“The IESO’s report is peddling the continued use of natural gas under the guise of a decarbonization plan, and it takes as a given the ramping up of gas generation and continues to rely on gas generated electricity until 2050, which is embarrassingly late,” said Lana Goldberg, Environmental Defence’s Ontario climate program manager.

“Building new nuclear is absurd when we have safe and much cheaper alternatives such as wind and solar power.”

The IESO has said the flexibility natural gas provides, alongside new gas plants, is needed to keep the system stable while new and relatively untested technologies are explored and new infrastructure gets built, but also as an electricity supply crunch looms.

Ontario is facing a shortfall of electricity with the Pickering nuclear station set to be retired, others being refurbished, and increasing demands including from electric vehicles, new electric vehicle and battery manufacturing, electric arc furnaces for steelmaking, and growth in the greenhouse and mining industries.

The government consultation also asks whether “additional investment” should be made in clean energy in the short term in order to decrease reliance on natural gas, “even if this will increase costs to the electricity system and ratepayers.”

But Smith indicated the government isn’t keen on higher costs.

“We’re not going to sacrifice reliability and affordability,” he said. “We have to have a reliable and affordable system, otherwise we won’t have people moving to electrification.”

The former Liberal government faced widespread anger over high hydro bills _ highlighted often by the Progressive Conservatives, then in Opposition — driven up in part by long-term contracts at above-market rates with clean power producers secured to spur a green energy transition.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

UK Coal Phase-Out marks record-low coal generation as the UK grid shifts to renewable power, wind farms, and a net zero trajectory, slashing carbon emissions and supporting cleaner EV charging across the electricity system.

Key Points

UK Coal Phase-Out ends coal-fired electricity nationwide, powered by renewables and net zero policy to cut grid carbon.

✅ Coal's Q2 share fell to 0.7%, a record low

✅ Renewables up 12% with Beatrice wind farm

✅ EV charging grows cleaner as grid decarbonizes

The share of coal in the UK’s electricity system has fallen to record lows in recent months, alongside a coal-free power record, according to government data.

The figures show electricity generated by the UK’s most polluting power plants made up an average of 0.7% of the total in the second quarter of this year, a shift underway since wind first outpaced coal in 2016 across the UK. The amount of coal used to power the electricity grid fell by almost two-thirds compared with the same months last year.

A government spokesperson said coal-generated energy “will soon be a distant memory” as the UK moves towards becoming a net zero emissions economy, despite signs that low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 in some analyses.

“This new record low is a result of our world-leading low-carbon energy industry, which provided more than half of our energy last year and continues to go from strength to strength as we aim to end our contribution to climate change entirely by 2050,” the spokesperson said.

The UK electricity market is on track to end coal power after 142 years by the government’s target date of 2025.

This year three major energy companies have announced plans to close coal-fired power plants in the UK, which would leave only four remaining after the coming winter, ahead of the last coal power station going offline nationwide.

RWE said this month it would close the Aberthaw B power station in south Wales, its last UK coal plant, after the winter. SSE will close the Fiddler’s Ferry plant near Warrington, Cheshire, in March 2020, and EDF Energy will shutter the Cottam coal plant in September.

So far this year the UK has gone more than 3,000 hours without using coal for power, including a full week without coal earlier in the year – nearly five times more than the whole of 2017.

Meanwhile, the government’s data shows that renewable energy climbed by 12% from the second quarter of last year, boosted by the startup of the Beatrice windfarm in the Moray Firth in Scotland, and the UK leading the G20 in wind power share in recent assessments.

The cleaner power system could accelerate carbon savings from the UK’s roads, too, as more drivers opt for electric vehicles. A study by Imperial College London for the energy company Drax found that the UK’s increasingly low-carbon energy system meant electric cars were a greener option even when taking into account the carbon emissions produced by making car batteries.

Dr Iain Staffell, of Imperial College London, said: “An electric vehicle in the UK simply cannot be more polluting than its petrol or diesel equivalent – even when taking into account the upfront carbon cost of manufacturing their batteries. Any EV bought today could be emitting just a tenth of what a petrol car would in as little as five years’ time, as the electricity it uses to charge comes from an increasingly low-carbon mix.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News