Opponent after opponent took turns sharply condemning a proposed 190-mile long high voltage power line through upstate New York, calling it an unneeded and unwanted "white elephant" that would endanger the region's economy and scar its landscape.
"Ultimately, it's nothing more than an extension cord running through someone else's bedroom," said Steve Skollar of Hamilton, one of nearly three dozen people who spoke against the New York Regional Interconnect plan at the first of 13 public hearings being held on the project by the state Public Service Commission.
"This is a bad idea for New York and would be a tragedy for the area," said Skollar, whose house would sit within a quarter-mile of the proposed line.
NYRI wants to build a $2.1 billion transmission line running from the Utica area through seven upstate New York counties to Orange County to bring power to the New York City area. NYRI says the 1,200-megawatt line is needed to improve the state's aging power grid and reduce the threat of blackouts like the one that struck the state in 2003.
But the project has generated intense opposition from residents and local governments along the proposed path who say it will harm their communities and lead to higher costs for power. The hearing was the first chance for residents to express their opposition. About 75 people attended the hearing, the first of two scheduled at Colgate University. That session was expected to be more heavily attended, opponents said.
Chris Rossi, a co-chair of the citizens' group STOP NYRI, said the project would threaten the region's future as a tourist destination because the towers would be an eyesore. Rossi said the area is a "living museum of 19th century land use and transportation," noting it is the home of the Erie Canal and underground railroad.
"The massive towers... would dominate the landscape and completely devastate the historical integrity of the route," said Rossi, of Hubbardsville.
Eve Ann Shwartz, co-chair of STOP NYRI and a vice chairman of the municipal coalition against the line, Communities Against Regional Interconnect, criticized NYRI because it has asked the federal government to guarantee profits of between 11 and 13 1/2 percent.
"My father built a thriving dairy and beef farm... without the help of the federal or state government subsidizing his business or guaranteeing him a profit," Shwartz said.
Shwartz said the proposed line would cut across her family's 1,200 acre farm for 1.8 miles and require her family to yield "clearing rights" on 16 acres, which includes its most productive corn and alfalfa fields. Increased power costs would be a hardship for farmers, as well as those in the food processing and light manufacturing industries.
Instead of a power line, Shwartz said the state would be better served by improved conservation and building electricity generating plants closer to where the power is needed.
In a recent review, New York's Independent System Operator said the state's existing transmission lines can provide sufficient and reliable electricity for the next 10 years without NYRI, said Owen Tallman, of Hamilton, who called the project a "white elephant."
Other speakers said the power line would reduce real estate values by between 10 percent and 40 percent and create a health hazard for local residents.
NYRI wants to build the line mostly along old railroad beds in one of two areas identified by the federal government as "national interest energy transmission corridors."
The company has said the line would run largely along the old railroad rights of way, but the PSC has asked NYRI to consider alternate routes. NYRI has said it would bury part of the line underground in the most densely populated section near Utica, but that doing so for the entire length of the project would be too expensive to build and maintain.
Jane Welsh of Madison said she is worried Washington officials would step in and approve the power line project even if the PSC rejects the project — a power it can evoke inside the special transmission corridors.
"The NYRI project is nothing short of a rape perpetrated upon our local communities by a wealthy and politically connected group of outsiders," Welsh said.
Welsh also objected to NYRI being able to exercise eminent domain to acquire private property.
Outside the hearing, opponents constructed a mock cemetery with cardboard tombstones. Each bore an RIP for something opponents say they will lose if the project proceeds — tourism, landscape, health, jobs, and real estate values, among them.
The public hearings continue for the next three weeks. The final hearing is Nov. 6 in Norwich.
Canadian EV Manufacturing is accelerating with GM, Ford, and Project Arrow, integrating cross-border supply chains, battery production, rare-earths like lithium and cobalt, autonomous tech, and home charging to drive clean mobility and decarbonization.
Key Points
Canadian EV manufacturing spans electric and autonomous vehicles, domestic batteries, and integrated US-Canada trade.
✅ GM and Ford retool plants for EVs and autonomous production
✅ Project Arrow showcases Canadian zero-emission supply capabilities
✅ Lithium, cobalt, and battery hubs target cross-border resilience
The storied North American automotive industry, the ultimate showcase of Canada’s high-tensile trade ties with the United States and emerging Canada-U.S. collaboration on EVs momentum, is about to navigate a dramatic hairpin turn.
But as the Big Three veer into the all-electric, autonomous era, some Canadians want to seize the moment and take the wheel.
“There’s a long shadow between the promise and the execution, but all the pieces are there,” says Flavio Volpe, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association.
“We went from a marriage on the rocks to one that both partners are committed to. It could be the best second chapter ever.”
Volpe is referring specifically to GM, which announced late last month an ambitious plan to convert its entire portfolio of vehicles to an all-electric platform by 2035.
But that decision is just part of a cascading transformation across the industry, marking an EV inflection point with existential ramifications for one of the most tightly integrated cross-border manufacturing and supply-chain relationships in the world.
China is already working hard to become the “source of a new way” to power vehicles, President Joe Biden warned last week.
“We just have to step up.”
Canada has both the resources and expertise to do the same, says Volpe, whose ambitious Project Arrow concept — a homegrown zero-emissions vehicle named for the 1950s-era Avro interceptor jet — is designed to showcase exactly that, as recent EV assembly deals in Canada underscore.
“We’re going to prove to the market, we’re going to prove to the (manufacturers) around the planet, that everything that goes into your zero-emission vehicle can be made or sourced here in Canada,” he says.
“If somebody wants to bring what we did over the line and make 100,000 of them a year, I’ll hand it to them.”
GM earned the ire of Canadian auto workers in 2018 by announcing the closure of its assembly plant in Oshawa, Ont. It later resurrected the facility with a $170-million investment to retool it for autonomous vehicles.
“It was, ‘You closed Oshawa, how dare you?’ And I was one of the ‘How dare you’ people,” Volpe says.
“Well, now that they’ve reopened Oshawa, you sit there and you open your eyes to the commitment that General Motors made.”
Ford, too, has entered the fray, promising $1.8 billion to retool its sprawling landmark facility in Oakville, Ont., to build EVs.
It’s a leap of faith of sorts, considering what market experts say is ongoing consumer doubt about EVs and EV supply shortages that drive wait times.
“Range anxiety” — the persistent fear of a depleted battery at the side of the road — remains a major concern, even though it’s less of a problem than most people think.
Consulting firm Deloitte Canada, which has been tracking automotive consumer trends for more than a decade, found three-quarters of future EV buyers it surveyed planned to charge their vehicles at home overnight.
“The difference between what is a perceived issue in a consumer’s mind and what is an actual issue is actually quite negligible,” Ryan Robinson, Deloitte’s automotive research leader, says in an interview.
“It’s still an issue, full stop, and that’s something that the industry is going to have to contend with.”
So, too, is price, especially with the end of the COVID-19 pandemic still a long way off. Deloitte’s latest survey, released last month, found 45 per cent of future buyers in Canada hope to spend less than $35,000 — a tall order when most base electric-vehicle models hover between $40,000 and $45,000.
“You put all of that together and there’s still, despite the electric-car revolution hype, some major challenges that a lot of stakeholders that touch the automotive industry face,” Robinson says.
“It’s not just government, it’s not just automakers, but there are a variety of stakeholders that have a role to play in making sure that Canadians are ready to make the transition over to electric mobility.”
With protectionism no longer a dirty word in the United States and Biden promising to prioritize American workers and suppliers, the Canadian government’s job remains the same as it ever was: making sure the U.S. understands Canada’s mission-critical role in its own economic priorities.
“We’re both going to be better off on both sides of the border, as we have been in the past, if we orient ourselves toward this global competition as one force,” says Gerald Butts, vice-chairman of the political-risk consultancy Eurasia Group and a former principal secretary to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
“It served us extraordinarily well in the past … and I have no reason to believe it won’t serve us well in the future.”
Last month, GM announced a billion-dollar plan to build its new all-electric BrightDrop EV600 van in Ingersoll, Ont., at Canada’s first large-scale EV manufacturing plant for delivery vehicles.
That investment, Volpe says, assumes Canada will take the steps necessary to help build a homegrown battery industry — with projects such as a new Niagara-region battery plant pointing the way — drawing on the country’s rare-earth resources like lithium and cobalt that are waiting to be extracted in northern Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere.
Given that the EV industry is still in his infancy, the free market alone won’t be enough to ensure those resources can be extracted and developed, he says.
“General Motors made a billion-dollar bet on Canada because it’s going to assume that the Canadian government — this one or the next one — is going to commit” to building that business.
Such an investment would pay dividends well beyond the auto sector, considering the federal Liberal government’s commitment to lowering greenhouse gas-emissions, including a 2035 EV mandate, and meeting targets set out in the Paris climate accord.
“If you make investments in renewable energy and utility storage using battery technology, you can build an industry at scale that the auto industry can borrow,” Volpe says.
Major manufacturing, retail and office facilities would be able to use that technology to help “shave the peak” off Canada’s GHG emissions and achieve those targets, all the while paving the way for a self-sufficient electric-vehicle industry.
“You’d be investing in the exact same technology you’d use in a car.”
There’s one problem, says Robinson: the lithium-ion batteries on roads right now might not be where the industry ultimately lands.
“We’re not done with with battery technology,” Robinson says. “What you don’t want to do is invest in a technology that is that is rapidly evolving, and could potentially become obsolete going forward.”
Fuel cells — energy-efficient, hydrogen-powered units that work like batteries, but without the need for constant recharging — continue to be part of the conversation, he adds.
“The amount of investment is huge, and you want to be sure that you’re making the right decision, so you don’t find yourself behind the curve just as all that capacity is coming online.”
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.
Maple Ridge Lithium-Ion Battery Plant will be a $1B E-One Moli clean-tech facility in Canada, manufacturing high-performance cells for tools and devices, with federal and provincial funding, creating 450 jobs and boosting battery supply chains.
Key Points
A $1B E-One Moli facility in B.C. producing lithium-ion cells, backed by federal and provincial funding.
✅ $204.5M federal and up to $80M B.C. support committed
✅ E-One Moli to create 450 skilled jobs in Maple Ridge
✅ High-performance cells for tools, medical devices, and equipment
A lithium-ion battery cell production plant costing more than $1 billion will be built in Maple Ridge, B.C., Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier David Eby jointly announced on Tuesday.
Trudeau and Eby say the new E-One Moli facility will bolster Canada's role as a global leader in clean technology, as recent investments in Quebec's EV battery assembly illustrate today.
It will be the largest factory in Canada to manufacture such high-performance batteries, Trudeau said during the announcement, amid other developments such as a new plant in the Niagara Region supporting EV growth.
The B.C. government will contribute up to $80 million, while the federal government plans to contribute up to $204.5 million to the project. E-One Moli and private sources will supply the rest of the funding.
Trudeau said B.C. has long been known for its innovation in the clean-technology sector, and securing the clean battery manufacturing project, alongside Northvolt's project near Montreal, will build on that expertise.
"The world is looking to Canada. When we support projects like E-One Moli's new facility in Maple Ridge, we bolster Canada's role as a global clean-tech leader, create good jobs and help keep our air clean," he said.
"This is the future we are building together, every single day. Climate policy is economic policy."
Nelson Chang, chairman of E-One Moli Energy, said the company has always been committed to innovation and creativity as creator of the world's first commercialized lithium-metal battery.
E-One Moli has been operating a plant in Maple Ridge since 1990. Its parent company, Taiwan Cement Corp., is based in Taiwan.
"We believe that human freedom is a chance for us to do good for others and appreciate life's fleeing nature, to leave a positive impact on the world," Chang said.
"We believe that [carbon dioxide] reduction is absolutely the key to success for all future businesses," he said.
The new plant will produce high-performance lithium-cell batteries found in numerous products, including vacuums, medical devices, and power and gardening tools, aligning with B.C.'s grid development and job plans already underway, and is expected to create 450 jobs, making E-One Moli the largest private-sector employer in Maple Ridge.
Eby said every industry needs to find ways to reduce their carbon footprint to ensure they have a prosperous future and every province should do the same, with resource plays like Alberta's lithium supporting the EV supply chain today.
It's the responsible thing to do given the record wildfires, extreme heat, and atmospheric rivers that caused catastrophic flooding in B.C., he said, with large-scale battery storage in southwestern Ontario helping grid reliability.
"We know that this is what we have to do. The people who suggest that we have to accept that as the future and stop taking action are simply wrong."
Trudeau, Eby and Chang toured the existing plant in Maple Ridge, east of Vancouver, before making the announcement.
The prime minister wove his way around several machines and apologized to technicians about the commotion his visit was creating.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation criticized the federal and B.C. governments for the announcement, saying in a statement the multimillion-dollar handout to the battery firm will cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars for each job.
Federation director Franco Terrazzano said the Trudeau government has recently given "buckets of cash" to corporations such as Volkswagen, Stellantis, the Ford Motor Company and Northvolt.
"Instead of raising taxes on ordinary Canadians and handing out corporate welfare, governments should be cutting red tape and taxes to grow the economy," said Terrazzano.
Construction is expected to start next June, as EV assembly deals put Canada in the race, and the company plans for the facility to be fully operational in 2028.
✅ Vegetation management reduces storm-related line contact
✅ Selective undergrounding where risk and cost justify
The increasing intensity of storms that lead to massive power outages highlights the need for Canada’s electrical utilities to be more robust and innovative, climate change scientists say.
“We need to plan to be more resilient in the face of the increasing chances of these events occurring,” University of New Brunswick climate change scientist Louise Comeau said in a recent interview.
The East Coast was walloped this week by the third storm in as many days, with high winds toppling trees and even part of a Halifax church steeple, underscoring the value of storm-season electrical safety tips for residents.
Significant weather events have consistently increased over the last five years, according to the Canadian Electricity Association (CEA), which has tracked such events since 2003.
#google#
Nearly a quarter of total outage hours nationally in 2016 – 22 per cent – were caused by two ice storms, a lightning storm, and the Fort McMurray fires, which the CEA said may or may not be classified as a climate event.
“It (climate change) is putting quite a lot of pressure on electricity companies coast to coast to coast to improve their processes and look for ways to strengthen their systems in the face of this evolving threat,” said Devin McCarthy, vice president of public affairs and U.S. policy for the CEA, which represents 40 utilities serving 14 million customers.
The 2016 figures – the most recent available – indicate the average Canadian customer experienced 3.1 outages and 5.66 hours of outage time.
McCarthy said electricity companies can’t just build their systems to withstand the worst storm they’d dealt with over the previous 30 years. They must prepare for worse, and address risks highlighted by Site C dam stability concerns as part of long-term planning.
“There needs to be a more forward looking approach, climate science led, that looks at what do we expect our system to be up against in the next 20, 30 or 50 years,” he said.
Toronto Hydro is either looking at or installing equipment with extreme weather in mind, Elias Lyberogiannis, the utility’s general manager of engineering, said in an email.
That includes stainless steel transformers that are more resistant to corrosion, and breakaway links for overhead service connections, which allow service wires to safely disconnect from poles and prevents damage to service masts.
Comeau said smaller grids, tied to electrical systems operated by larger utilities, often utilize renewable energy sources such as solar and wind as well as battery storage technology to power collections of buildings, homes, schools and hospitals.
“Capacity to do that means we are less vulnerable when the central systems break down,” Comeau said.
Nova Scotia Power recently announced an “intelligent feeder” pilot project, which involves the installation of Tesla Powerwall storage batteries in 10 homes in Elmsdale, N.S., and a large grid-sized battery at the local substation. The batteries are connected to an electrical line powered in part by nearby wind turbines.
The idea is to test the capability of providing customers with back-up power, while collecting data that will be useful for planning future energy needs.
Tony O’Hara, NB Power’s vice-president of engineering, said the utility, which recently sounded an alarm on copper theft, was in the late planning stages of a micro-grid for the western part of the province, and is also studying the use of large battery storage banks.
“Those things are coming, that will be an evolution over time for sure,” said O’Hara.
Some solutions may be simpler. Smaller utilities, like Nova Scotia Power, are focusing on strengthening overhead systems, mainly through vegetation management, while in Ontario, Hydro One and Alectra are making major investments to strengthen infrastructure in the Hamilton area.
“The number one cause of outages during storms, particularly those with high winds and heavy snow, is trees making contact with power lines,” said N.S. Power’s Tiffany Chase.
The company has an annual budget of $20 million for tree trimming and removal.
“But the reality is with overhead infrastructure, trees are going to cause damage no matter how robust the infrastructure is,” said Matt Drover, the utility’s director for regional operations.
“We are looking at things like battery storage and a variety of other reliability programs to help with that.”
NB Power also has an increased emphasis on tree trimming and removal, and now spends $14 million a year on it, up from $6 million prior to 2014.
O’Hara said the vegetation program has helped drive the average duration of power outages down since 2014 from about three hours to two hours and 45 minutes.
Some power cables are buried in both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, mostly in urban areas. But both utilities maintain it’s too expensive to bury entire systems – estimated at $1 million per kilometre by Nova Scotia Power.
The issue of burying more lines was top of mind in Toronto following a 2013 ice storm, but that’s city’s utility also rejected the idea of a large-scale underground system as too expensive – estimating the cost at around $15 billion, while Ontario customers have seen Hydro One delivery rates rise in recent adjustments.
“Having said that, it is prudent to do so for some installations depending on site specific conditions and the risks that exist,” Lyberogiannis said.
Comeau said lowering risks will both save money and disruption to people’s lives.
“We can’t just do what we used to do,” said Xuebin Zhang, a senior climate change scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada.
“We have to build in management risk … this has to be a new norm.”
B.C. Hydro Salary Continuance Payout spotlights executive compensation, severance, and governance at a Crown corporation after a firing, citing financial disclosure reports, Site C dam ties, and a leadership change under a new government.
Key Points
Severance-style pay for B.C. Hydro's fired CEO, via salary continuance and disclosed in public filings.
✅ $541,615 total compensation without working days
✅ Salary continuance after NDP firing; financial disclosures
✅ Later named Canada Post interim CEO amid strike
Former B.C. Hydro president and chief executive officer Jessica McDonald received a total of $541,615 in compensation during the 2017-2018 fiscal year, a figure that sits amid wider debates over executive pay at utilities such as Hydro One CEO pay at the provincial utility, without having worked a single day for the Crown corporation.
She earned this money under a compensation package after the in-coming New Democratic government of John Horgan fired her, a move comparable to Ontario's decision when the Hydro One CEO and board exit amid share declines. The previous B.C. Liberal government named her president and CEO of B.C. Hydro in 2014, and McDonald was a strong supporter of the controversial Site C dam project now going ahead following a review.
The current New Democratic government placed her on what financial disclosure documents call “salary continuance” effective July 21, 2017 — the day the government announced her departure — at a utility scrutinized in a misled regulator report that raised oversight concerns.
According to financial disclosure statements, McDonald remained on “salary continuance” until Sept. 21 of this year, and the utility has also been assessed in a deferred operating costs report released by the auditor general. During this period, she earned $272,659, a figure that includes benefits, pension and other compensation.
McDonald — who used to be the deputy minister to former premier Gordon Campbell — is now working for Canada Post, which appointed her as interim president and chief executive officer in March, while developments at Manitoba Hydro highlight broader political pressures on Crown utilities.
She started in her new role on April 2, 2018, and now finds herself in the middle of managing a postal carrier strike.
Muskrat Falls financial impact highlights a hydro megaproject's cost overruns, rate mitigation challenges, and inquiry findings in Newfoundland and Labrador, with power exports, Churchill River generation, and subsea cables shaping long-term viability.
Key Points
It refers to the project's burden on provincial finances, driven by cost overruns, rate hikes, and debt risks.
✅ Costs rose to $12.7B from $6.2B; inquiry cites suppressed risks.
✅ Rate mitigation needed to offset power bill shocks.
✅ Exports via subsea cables may improve long-term viability.
Newfoundland and Labrador's premier says the Muskrat Falls hydro megaproject is currently too much of a massive financial burden for him to be optimistic about its long-term potential.
"I am probably one of the most optimistic people in this room," Liberal Premier Dwight Ball told the inquiry into the project's runaway cost and scheduling issues, echoing challenges at Manitoba Hydro that have raised similar concerns.
"I believe the future is optimistic for Newfoundland Labrador, of course I do. But I'm not going to sit here today and say we have an optimistic future because of the Muskrat Falls project."
Ball, who was re-elected on May 16, has been critical of the project since he was opposition leader around the time it was sanctioned by the former Tory government.
He said Friday that despite his criticism of the Labrador dam, which has seen costs essentially double to more than $12.7 billion, he didn't set out to celebrate a failed project.
He said he still wants to see Muskrat Falls succeed someday through power sales outside the province, but there are immediate challenges -- including mitigating power-rate hikes once the dam starts providing full power and addressing winter reliability risks for households.
"We were told the project would be $6.2 billion, we're at $12.7 (billion). We were never told this project would be nearly 30 per cent of the net debt of this province just six, seven years later," the premier said.
"I wanted this to be successful, and in the long term I still want it to be successful. But we have to deal with the next 10 years."
The nearly complete dam will harness Labrador's lower Churchill River to provide electricity to the province as well as Nova Scotia and potentially beyond through subsea cables, while the legacy of Churchill Falls continues to shape regional power arrangements.
Ball's testimony wraps up a crucial phase of hearings in the extensive public inquiry.
The inquiry has heard from dozens of witnesses, with current and former politicians, bureaucrats, executives and consultants, amid debates over Quebec's electricity ambitions in the region, shedding long-demanded light on what went on behind closed doors that made the project go sideways.
Some witnesses have suggested that estimates were intentionally suppressed, and many high-ranking officials, including former premiers, have denied seeing key information about risk.
On Thursday, Ball testified to his shock when he began to understand the true financial state of the project after he was elected premier in 2015.
On Friday, Ball said he has more faith in future of the offshore oil and gas industry, and emerging options like small nuclear reactors, for example, than a mismanaged project that has put immense pressure on residents already struggling to make ends meet.
After his testimony, Ball said he takes some responsibility for a missed opportunity to mitigate methylmercury risks downstream from the dam through capping the reservoir, in parallel with debates over biomass power in electricity generation, something he had committed to doing before it is fully flooded this summer.
Still to come is a third phase of hearings on future best practices for issues like managing large-scale projects and independent electricity planning, two public feedback sessions and closing submissions from lawyers.
The final report from the inquiry is due before Dec. 31.
