Outlook from solar companies disappoints investors

Canada Net-Zero Grid Lessons highlight Europe's energy transition risks: Germany's power prices, wind and solar variability, nuclear phaseout, grid reliability, storage, market design, policy reforms, and distributed energy resources for resilient decarbonization.

Key Points

Lessons stress an all-of-the-above mix, robust market design, storage, and nuclear to ensure reliability, affordability.

✅ Diversify: nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, storage for reliability.

✅ Reform markets and grid planning for integration and flexibility.

✅ Build fast: streamline permitting, invest in transmission and DERs.

Europe is currently suffering the consequences of an uncoordinated rush to carbon-free electricity that experts warn could hit Canada as well unless urgent action is taken.

Power prices in Germany, for example, hit a record 91 euros ($135 CAD) per megawatt-hour earlier this month. That is more than triple what electricity costs in Ontario, where greening the grid could require massive investment, even during periods of peak demand.

Experts blame the price spikes in large part on a chaotic transition to a specific set of renewable electricity sources - wind and solar - at the expense of other carbon-free supplies such as nuclear power. Germany, Europe’s largest economy, plans to close its last remaining nuclear power plant next year despite warnings that renewables are not being added to the German grid quickly enough to replace that lost supply.

As Canada prepares to transition its own electricity grid to 100 per cent net-zero supplies by 2035, with provinces like Ontario planning new wind and solar procurement, experts say the European power crisis offers lessons this country must heed in order to avoid a similar fate.

'A CAUTIONARY TALE'
“Some countries have rushed their transition without thinking about what people need and when they need it,” said Chris Bentley, managing director of Ryerson University’s Legal Innovation Zone who also served as Ontario’s Minister of Energy from 2011 to 2013, in an interview. “Germany has experienced a little bit of this issue recently when the wind wasn’t blowing.”

Wind power usually provides between 20 and 30 per cent of Germany’s electricity needs, but the below-average breeze across much of continental Europe in recent months has pushed that figure down.

“There is a cautionary tale from the experience in Europe,” said Francis Bradley, chief executive officer of the Canadian Electricity Association, in an interview. “There was also a cautionary tale from what took place this past winter in Texas,” he added, referring to widespread power failures in Texas spawned by a lack of backup power supplies during an unusually cold winter that led to many deaths.

The first lesson Canada must learn from those cautionary tales, Bradley said, “is the need to pursue an all-of-the-above approach.”

“It is absolutely essential that every opportunity and every potential technology for low-carbon or no-carbon electricity needs to be pursued and needs to be pursued to the fullest,” he said.

The more important lesson for Canada, according to Binnu Jeyakumar, is about the need for a more holistic, nuanced approach to our own net-zero transition.

“It is very easy to have runaway narratives that just pinpoint the blame on one or two issues, but the lesson here isn’t really about the reliability of renewables as there are failures that occur across all sources of electricity supply,” said Jeyakumar, director of clean energy for the Pembina Institute, in an interview. 

“The takeaway for us is that we need to get better at learning how to integrate an increasingly diverse electricity grid,” she said. “It is not necessarily the technologies themselves, it is about how we do grid planning, how are our markets structured and are we adapting them to the trends that are evolving in the electricity and energy sectors.”
 

'ABSOLUTELY ENORMOUS' CHALLENGE IS 'ALMOST MIND-BENDING'
Canada already gets the vast majority of its electricity from emission-free sources. Hydro provides roughly 60 per cent of our power, nuclear contributes another 15 per cent and renewables such as wind and solar contribute roughly seven per cent more, according to federal government data.

Tempting as it might be to view the remaining 18 per cent of Canadian electricity that is supplied by oil, natural gas and coal as a small enough proportion that it should be relatively easy to replace, with some analyses warning that scrapping coal abruptly can be costly for consumers, the reality is much more difficult.

“It is the law of diminishing returns or the 80-20 rule where the first 80 per cent is easy but the last 20 per cent is hard,” Bradley explained. “We already have an electricity sector that is 80 per cent GHG-free, so getting rid of that last 20 per cent is the really difficult part because the low-hanging fruit has already been picked.”

Key to successfully decarbonizing Canada’s power grid will be the recognition that electricity demand is constantly growing, a point reinforced by a recent power challenges report that underscores the scale. That means Canada needs to build out enough emission-free power sources to replace existing fossil fuel-based supplies while also ensuring adequate supplies for future demand.

“It is one thing to say that by 2035 we are going to have a decarbonized electricity system, but the challenge really is the amount of additional electricity that we are going to need between now and 2035,” said John Gorman, chief executive officer of the Canadian Nuclear Association, which has argued that nuclear is key to climate goals in Canada, and former CEO of the Canadian Solar Industries Association, in an interview. “It is absolutely enormous, I mean, it is almost mind-bending.”

Canada will need to triple the amount of electricity produced nationwide by 2050, according to a report from SNC-Lavalin published earlier this year, and provinces such as Ontario face a shortfall over the next few years, Gorman said. Gorman said that will require adding between five and seven gigawatts of new installed capacity to Canada’s electricity grid every year from 2021 through 2050 or more than twice the amount of new power supply Canada brings online annually right now.

For perspective, consider Ontario’s Bruce Power nuclear facility. It took 27 years to bring that plant to its current 6.4 gigawatt (GW) capacity, but meeting Canada’s decarbonization goals will require adding roughly the equivalent capacity of Bruce Power every year for the next three decades.

“The task of creating enough electricity in the coming years is truly enormous and governments have not really wrapped their heads around that yet,” Gorman said. “For those of us in the energy sector, it is the type of thing that can keep you up at night.”

GOVERNMENT POLICY 'HELD HOSTAGE' BY 'DINOSAURS'
The Pembina Institute’s Jeyakumar agreed “the last mile is often the most difficult” and will require “a concerted effort both at the federal level and the provincial level.”

Governments will “need to be able to support innovation and solutions such as non-wires alternatives,” she said. “Instead of building a massive new transmission line or beefing up an old one, you could put a storage facility at the end of an existing line. Distributed energy resources provide those kinds of non-wires alternatives and they are already cost-effective and competitive with oil and gas.”

For Glen Murray, who served as Ontario’s minister of infrastructure and transportation from early 2013 to mid-2014 before assuming the environment and climate change portfolio until his resignation in mid-2017, that is a key lesson governments have yet to learn.

“We are moving away from a centralized distribution model to distributed systems where individual buildings and homes and communities will supply their own electricity needs,” said Murray, who currently works for an urban planning software company in Winnipeg, in an interview. “Yet both the federal and provincial governments are assuming that we are going to continue to have large, centralized generation of power, but that is simply not going to be the case.”

“Government policy is not focused on driving that because they are held hostage by their own hydro utilities and the big gas companies,” Murray said. “They are controlling the agenda even though they are the dinosaurs.”

Referencing the SNC-Lavalin report, Gorman noted as many as 45 small, modular nuclear reactors as well as 20 conventional nuclear power plants will be required in the coming decades, with jurisdictions like Ontario exploring new large-scale nuclear as part of that mix: “And that is in the context of also maximizing all the other emission-free electricity sources we have available as well from wind to solar to hydro and marine renewables,” Gorman said, echoing the “all-of-the-above” mindset of the Canadian Electricity Association.

There are, however, “fundamental rules of the market and the regulatory system that make it an uneven playing field for these new technologies to compete,” said Jeyakumar, agreeing with Murray’s concerns. “These are all solvable problems but we need to work on them now.”
 

'2035 IS TOMORROW'
According to Bentley, the former Ontario energy minister-turned academic, “the government's role is to match the aspiration with the means to achieve that aspiration.”

“We have spent far more time as governments talking about the goals and the high-level promises [of a net-zero electricity grid by 2035] without spending as much time as we need to in order to recognize what a massive transformation this will mean,” Bentley said. “It is easy to talk about the end-goal, but how do you get there?”

The Canadian Electricity Assocation’s Bradley agreed “there are still a lot of outstanding questions about how we are going to turn those aspirations into actual policies. The 2035 goal is going to be very difficult to achieve in the absence of seeing exactly what the policies are that are going to move us in that direction.”

“It can take a decade to go through the processes of consultations and planning and then building and getting online,” Bradley said. “Particularly when you’re talking about big electricity projects, 2035 is tomorrow.”

Jeyakumar said “we cannot afford to wait any longer” for policies to be put in place as the decisions governments make today “will then lock us in for the next 30 or 40 years into specific technologies.”

“We need to consider it like saving for retirement,” said Gorman of the Canadian Nuclear Association. “Every year that you don’t contribute to your retirement savings just pushes your retirement one more year into the future.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

New England oil-fired generation surges as ISO New England manages a cold snap, dual-fuel switching, and a natural gas price spike, highlighting winter reliability challenges, LNG and pipeline limits, and rising CO2 emissions.

Key Points

Reliance on oil-burning power plants during winter demand spikes when natural gas is costly or constrained.

✅ Driven by dual-fuel switching amid high natural gas prices

✅ ISO-NE winter reliability rules encourage oil stockpiles

✅ Raises CO2 emissions despite coal retirements and renewables growth

New England is relying on oil-fired generators for the most electricity since 2018 as a frigid blast boosts demand for power and natural gas prices soar across markets. 

Oil generators were producing more than 4,200 megawatts early Thursday, accounting for about a quarter of the grid’s power supply, according to ISO New England. That was the most since Jan. 6, 2018, when oil plants produced as much as 6.4 gigawatts, or 32% of the grid’s output, said Wood Mackenzie analyst Margaret Cashman.  

Oil is typically used only when demand spikes, because of higher costs and emissions concerns. Consumption has been consistently high over the past three weeks as some generators switch from gas, which has surged in price in recent months. New England generators are producing power from oil at an average rate of almost 1.8 gigawatts so far this month, the highest for January in at least five years. 

Oil’s share declined to 16% Friday morning ahead of an expected snowstorm, which was “a surprise,” Cashman said. 

“It makes me wonder if some of those generators are aiming to reserve their fuel for this weekend,” she said.

During the recent cold snap, more than a tenth of the electricity generated in New England has been produced by power plants that haven’t happened for at least 15 years.

Burning oil for electricity was standard practice throughout the region for decades. It was once our most common fuel for power and as recently as 2000, fully 19% of the six-state region’s electricity came from burning oil, according to ISO-New England, more than any other source except nuclear power at the time.

Since then, however, natural gas has gotten so cheap that most oil-fired plants have been shut or converted to burn gas, to the point that just 1% of New England’s electricity came from oil in 2018, whereas about half our power came from natural gas generation regionally during that period. This is good because natural gas produces less pollution, both particulates and greenhouse gasses, although exactly how much less is a matter of debate.

But as you probably know, there’s a problem: Natural gas is also used for heating, which gets first dibs. Prolonged cold snaps require so much gas to keep us warm, a challenge echoed in Ontario’s electricity system as supply tightens, that there might not be enough for power plants – at least, not at prices they’re willing to pay.

After we came close to rolling brownouts during the polar vortex in the 2017-18 winter because gas-fired power plants cut back so much, ISO-NE, which has oversight of the power grid, established “winter reliability” rules. The most important change was to pay power plants to become dual-fuel, meaning they can switch quickly between natural gas and oil, and to stockpile oil for winter cold snaps.

We’re seeing that practice in action right now, as many dual-fuel plants have switched away from gas to oil, just as was intended.

That switch is part of the reason EPA says the region’s carbon emissions have gone up in the pandemic, from 22 million tons of CO2 in 2019 to 24 million tons in 2021. That reverses a long trend caused partly by closing of coal plants and partly by growing solar and offshore wind capacity: New England power generation produced 36 million tons of CO2 a decade ago.

So if we admit that a return to oil burning is bad, and it is, what can we do in future winters? There are many possibilities, including tapping more clean imports such as Canadian hydropower to diversify supply.

The most obvious solution is to import more natural gas, especially from fracked fields in New York state and Pennsylvania. But efforts to build pipelines to do that have been shot down a couple of times and seem unlikely to go forward and importing more gas via ocean tanker in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) is also an option, but hits limits in terms of port facilities.

Aside from NIMBY concerns, the problem with building pipelines or ports to import more gas is that pipelines and ports are very expensive. Once they’re built they create a financial incentive to keep using natural gas for decades to justify the expense, similar to moves such as Ontario’s new gas plants that lock in generation. That makes it much harder for New England to decarbonize and potentially leaves ratepayers on the hook for a boatload of stranded costs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Capacity Market Overhaul faces scrutiny over electricity costs, reliability targets, investor certainty, and AESO design, as UCP reviews NDP reforms, renewables integration, and deregulated energy-only alternatives impacting generators, ratepayers, and future power price volatility.

Key Points

A shift paying generators for capacity and energy to improve reliability; critics warn of higher electricity costs.

✅ UCP reviewing NDP plan and subsidies amid market uncertainty

✅ AESO cites reliability needs as coal retires, renewables grow

✅ Critics predict overprocurement and premature launch cost spikes

Jason Kenney's government is facing renewed pressure to cancel a massive overhaul of Alberta's power market that one player says will needlessly spike costs by hundreds of millions of dollars, amid an electricity sector in profound change today.

Nick Clark, who owns the Calgary-based electricity retailer Spot Power, has sent the Alberta government an open letter urging it to walk away from the electricity market changes proposed by the former NDP government.

"How can you encourage new industry to open up when one of their raw material costs will increase so dramatically?" Clark said. "The capacity market will add more costs to the consumer and it will be a spiral downwards."

But NDP Leader Rachel Notley, whose government ushered in the changes, said fears over dramatic cost increases are unfounded.

"There are some players within the current electricity regime who have a vested interest in maintaining the current situation," Notley said

Kenney's UCP vowed during the recent election to review the current and proposed electricity market options, as the electricity market heads for a reshuffle, with plans to report on its findings within 90 days.

The party also promised to scrap subsidies for renewable power, while ensuring "a market-based electricity system" that emphasizes competition in Alberta's electricity market for consumers.

The New Democrats had opted to scrap the current deregulated power market — in place since the Klein era — after phasing out coal-fired generation and ushering in new renewable power as part of changes in how Alberta produces and pays for electricity under their climate change strategy.

The Alberta Electric System Operator, which oversees the grid, says the province will need new sources of electricity to replace shuttered coal plants and backstop wind and solar generators, while meeting new consumer demand.

After consulting with power companies and investors, the AESO concluded in late 2016 the electricity market couldn't attract enough investment to build the needed power generation under the current model.

The AESO said at the time investors were concerned their revenues would be uncertain once new plants are running. It recommended what's known as a capacity market, which compensates power generators for having the ability to produce electricity, even when they're not producing it.

In other words, producers would collect revenue for selling electricity into the grid and, separately, for having the capacity to produce power as a backstop, ensuring the lights stay on. Power generators would use this second source of income to help cover plant construction costs.

Clark said the complex system introduces unnecessary costs, which he believes would hurt consumers in the end. He said what's preventing investment in the power market is uncertainty over how the market will be structured in the future.

"What investors need to see in this market is price certainty, regulatory ease, and where the money they're putting into the marketplace is not at risk," he said.

"They can risk their own money, but if in fact the government comes in and changes the policy as it was doing, then money stayed away from the province."

Notley said a capacity market would not increase power bills but would avoid big price swings, with protections like a consumer price cap on power bills also debated, while bringing greener sources of energy into Alberta's grid.

"Moving back to the [deregulated] energy-only market would make a lot of money for a few people, and put consumers, both industrial and residential, at great risk."

Clark disagrees, citing Enmax's recent submissions to the Alberta Utilities Commission, in which the utility argues the proposed design of the capacity market is flawed.

In its submissions to the commission, which is considering the future of Alberta's power market, Enmax says the proposed system would overestimate the amount of generation capacity the province will need in the future. It says the calculation could result in Alberta procuring too much capacity.

The City of Calgary-owned utility says this could drive up costs by anywhere from $147 million to $849 million a year. It says a more conservative calculation of future electricity demand could avoid the extra expense.

An analysis by a Calgary energy consulting firm suggests a different feature of the proposed power market overhaul could also lead to a massive spike in costs.

EDC Associates, hired by the Consumers' Coalition of Alberta, argues the proposal to launch the new system in November 2021 may be premature, because it could bring in additional supplies of electricity before they're needed.

The consultant's report, also filed with the Alberta Utilities Commission, estimates the early launch date could require customers to pay 40 per cent more for electricity amid rising electricity prices in the province — potentially an extra $1.4 billion — in 2021/22.

"The target implementation date is politically driven by the previous government," said Duane Reid-Carlson, president of EDC Associates.

Reid-Carlson recommends delaying the launch date by several years and making another tweak: reducing the proposed target for system reliability, which would scale back the amount of power generation needed to backstop renewable sources.

"You could get a result in the capacity market that would give a similar cost to consumers that the [deregulated] energy-only market design would have done otherwise," he said.

"You could have a better risk profile associated with the capacity market that would serve consumers better through lower cost, lower price volatility, and it would serve generators better by giving them better access to capital at lower costs."

The UCP government did not respond to a request for comment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Hydro-Quebec back-billing arises from analogue meter errors and estimated consumption, leading to arrears for electricity usage; disputes over access, payment plans, and potential power diversion reviews can impact cottage owners near Gatineau.

Key Points

Hydro-Quebec back-billing recovers underbilled electricity from analogue meter errors or prolonged estimated use.

✅ Triggered by inaccurate analogue meters or missed readings

✅ Based on actual usage versus prior estimated consumption

✅ Payment plans may spread arrears; theft checks may adjust

A relaxing lakefront cottage has become a powerful source of stress for an Ottawa woman who Hydro-Quebec is charging $5,300 to cover what it says are years of undercharging for electricity usage.

The utility said an old analogue power meter is to blame for years of inaccurate electricity bills for the summer getaway near Gatineau, Que.

Separate from individual billing issues, Hydro-Quebec has also reported pandemic-related losses earlier this year.

Owner Jan Hodgins does not think she should be held responsible for the mistake, nor does she understand how her usage could have surged over the years.

“I’m very hydro conscious, because I was raised that way. When you left a room, you always turned the light out,” she told CTV Montreal on Wednesday, relating her shock after receiving some hefty bills from Hydro-Quebec on Sept. 22.

Hodgins said she mainly uses the cottage on weekends, does not heat the place when she is not there, and does not use a washer or dryer, to keep her energy footprint as small as possible. She’s owned the cottage for 14 years, during which she says her monthly bill has hovered around $40.

Hydro-Quebec said it has not had an accurate reading of her usage for several years, relying instead on consumption estimates to determine what she pays. The company recently reviewed her energy consumption back to 2014, and found their estimates were not accurate.

“In the past, she was consuming about 10 to 15 kilowatt hours per day. This summer she was more around 40 kilowatt hours per day,” Marc-Antoine Pouliot with Hydro-Quebec told CTV Ottawa.

Hodgins said that means her regular bill will now be more than twice the $200 her neighbours are paying for hydro each month, even with peak hydro rates in place.

Hydro-Quebec said it will correct the bill if its technicians discover that someone is illegally diverting power nearby.

Hodgins said it’s not her fault that technicians did not check her meter in person, and chose to rely on inaccurate estimates. Pouliot argues that reaching her cottage was too difficult.

“There was too much snow. There were conditions during the winter disconnection ban period, and the consequence was that people, our workers, were not able to reach the meter,” he said.

Hydro-Quebec said it is willing to stretch out the debt into monthly payments over a year, which Hodgins said amount to $440 per month on top of her regular bill.

Utilities also caution customers about scammers threatening shutoffs during billing disputes.

“I’m on a fixed income. I don’t have that kind of money. I’m completely distraught,” she said. “I don’t know what I’m going to do.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

U.S. Climate Change Donation Survey reveals Americans' willingness to fund sustainability via government incentives, electrification, and renewable energy. Public opinion favors wind, solar, and decarbonization, highlighting policy support post-pandemic amid economic recovery efforts.

Key Points

A 2020 U.S. poll on climate attitudes: donation willingness, renewable support, and views on government incentives.

✅ 70% would donate income; 31% would donate nothing.

✅ 59% prefer government incentives; 47% support taxes, conservation.

✅ 85% land wind, 83% offshore wind, 90% solar support.

A new study of American consumers' attitudes toward climate change finds that more than two-thirds of respondents (70%) indicate their willingness to give or donate a percentage of their personal income to support the fight against climate change and the path to net-zero electricity emissions by mid-century. 

Twenty-eight percent indicated they were willing to provide less than 1% of their income; 33% said they would be willing to contribute 1-5% of their income; 6% said they would give between 6-10% of their income; and 3% indicated they would contribute more than 10% of their income. Just under one-third (31%) of those surveyed indicated they were unwilling to give or donate any percentage of their income to support the fight against climate change.

The U.S. findings are part of a series of surveys commissioned by Nexans in the U.S., UK and France, in order to determine public opinion on climate change and related issues in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The U.S. study was conducted online by Researchscape from August 20 – 24, 2020. It had 1,013 respondents, ages 18 or older, with the results weighted to be representative of the overall population (variables available upon request).

Nexans, is headquartered in Paris with a major offshore wind cable manufacturing facility in Charleston, S.C. and an industrial cable manufacturing facility in El Dorado, Ark. The company is fully committed to fighting climate change and is helping to make sustainable electrification possible. The survey was developed as part of its celebration of the first Climate Day in Paris which included a roundtable event with world-renowned experts, the release of an unprecedented global study by Roland Berger on the challenges raised by the electrification of the world, the question of whether the global energy transition is on track, and Nexans' own commitment to be carbon neutral by 2030.

Paying the Tab to Address Climate Change

Participants were given the opportunity to choose from seven multiple responses to the question "How should the fight against climate change be paid for?" The majority (59%) replied it should be paid for by "government incentives for both businesses and consumers." It was followed by "federal, state and/or local taxes" and "conservation programs" (tied at 47%); "business investments" (42%), such as carbon-free electricity initiatives, and "consumer-driven purchases" (33%). Just 9% selected none of the above and 2% selected other.

"Through the organization of this Climate Day, Nexans is asserting itself not only as an actor but also a thought leader of the energy transition for a sustainable electrification of the world. This electrification raises a number of challenges and paradoxes that must be overcome. And it will only happen with the direct involvement of the populations concerned. These surveys provide a better understanding of the level of information and disinformation, including climate change denial, in public opinion as well as their level of acceptability of these lifestyle changes," said Christopher Guérin, CEO, Nexans.

Among other findings, 44% are dissatisfied with the job that federal and state governments are doing to address climate change, while utilities like Duke Energy face investor pressure to release climate reports, 35% are somewhat satisfied and 21% are either very satisfied or completed satisfied with government's role.

Americans expressed overwhelmingly favorable views of wind and solar renewable energy proposals, as carbon emissions fall when electricity producers move away from coal. Specifically, 85% stated being in favor of wind turbines on land (15% against), 83% in favor of wind turbines off the coast (17% against) and 90% in support of solar panel farms (10% opposed).

Those surveyed were asked about their current and changing priorities towards climate change as influenced by the coronavirus pandemic and impacts like extreme heat on electricity bills. Thirty-nine percent indicated that climate change was no more and no less a priority due to the current health emergency; just under a third (31%) indicated that climate change is more of a priority while 30% said it was less of a priority.

In similar research conducted by Nexans in the United Kingdom, nearly two thirds (65.8%) of UK respondents said they would be willing to donate part of their salary to fight climate change. Furthermore, nearly a third (29%) of the UK's consumers believe that combating climate change has become more of a priority in light of the coronavirus pandemic. The UK research was conducted online by Savanta from August 21 – 24, 2020. A total of 2210 respondents, aged 16 and above, representative of the UK population took part.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News