Tariffs may hurt solar panel industry

U.S. Utility-Scale Solar Delays driven by the coronavirus pandemic threaten construction timelines, supply chains, and financing, with interconnection and commissioning setbacks, module sourcing risks in Southeast Asia, and tax credit deadline pressures impacting project delivery.

Key Points

Setbacks to large U.S. solar builds from COVID-19 impacting construction, supply, financing, and permitting.

✅ Construction, interconnection, commissioning site visits delayed

✅ Supply chain risks for modules from Southeast Asia

✅ Tax credit deadline extensions sought by developers

About 5 gigawatts (GW) of big U.S. solar energy projects, enough to power nearly 1 million homes, could suffer delays this year if construction is halted for months due to the coronavirus pandemic, as the Covid-19 crisis hits renewables across the sector, according to a report published on Wednesday.

The forecast, a worst-case scenario laid out in an analysis by energy research firm Wood Mackenzie, would amount to about a third of the utility-scale solar capacity expected to be installed in the United States this year, even as US solar and wind growth continues under favorable plans.

The report comes two weeks after the head of the top U.S. solar trade group called the coronavirus pandemic (as solar jobs decline nationwide) "a crisis here" for the industry. Solar and wind companies are pleading with Congress to extend deadlines for projects to qualify for sunsetting federal tax credits.

Even the firm’s best-case scenario would result in substantial delays, mirroring concerns that wind investments at risk across the industry. With up to four weeks of disruption, the outbreak will push out 2 GW of projects, or enough to power about 380,000 homes. Before factoring in the impact of the coronavirus, Wood Mackenzie had forecast 14.7 GW of utility-scale solar projects would be installed this year.

In its report, the firm said the projects are unlikely to be canceled outright. Rather, they will be pushed into the second half of 2020 or 2021. The analysis assumes that virus-related disruptions subside by the end of the third quarter.

Mid-stage projects that still have to secure financing and receive supplies are at the highest risk, Wood Mackenzie analyst Colin Smith said in an interview, adding that it was too soon to know whether the pandemic would end up altering long-term electricity demand and therefore utility procurement plans, where policy shifts such as an ITC extension could reshape priorities.

Currently, restricted travel is the most likely cause of project delays, the report said. Developers expect delays in physical site visits for interconnection and commissioning, and workers have had difficulty reaching remote construction sites.

For earlier-stage projects, municipal offices that process permits are closed and in-person meetings between developers and landowners or local officials have slowed down.

Most solar construction is proceeding despite stay at home orders in many states because it is considered critical infrastructure, and long-term proposals like a tenfold increase in solar could reshape the outlook, the report said, adding that “that could change with time.”

Risks to supplies of solar modules include potential manufacturing shutdowns in key producing nations in Southeast Asia such as Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand. Thus far, solar module production has been identified as an essential business and has been allowed to continue.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

San Juan Generating Station eyed for $1 coal-plant sale, as Farmington and Acme propose CCS retrofit, meeting emissions caps and renewable mandates by selling captured CO2 for enhanced oil recovery via a nearby pipeline.

Key Points

A New Mexico coal plant eyed for $1 and a CCS retrofit to cut emissions and sell CO2 for enhanced oil recovery.

✅ $400M-$800M CCS retrofit; 90% CO2 capture target

✅ CO2 sales for enhanced oil recovery; 20-mile pipeline gap

✅ PNM projects shutdown savings; renewable and emissions mandates

One dollar. That’s how much an aging New Mexico coal plant is worth. And by some estimates, even that may be too much.

Acme Equities LLC, a New York-based holding company, is in talks to buy the 847-megawatt San Juan Generating Station for $1, after four of its five owners decided to shut it down. The fifth owner, the nearby city of Farmington, says it’s pursuing the bargain-basement deal with Acme to avoid losing about 1,600 direct and indirect jobs in the area amid a broader just transition debate for energy workers.

We respectfully disagree with the notion that the plant is not economical

Acme’s interest comes as others are looking to exit a coal industry that’s been plagued by costly anti-pollution regulations. Acme’s plan: Buy the plant "at a very low cost," invest in carbon capture technology that will lower emissions, and then sell the captured CO2 to oil companies, said Larry Heller, a principal at the holding group.

By doing this, Acme “believes we can generate an acceptable rate of return,” Heller said in an email.

Meanwhile, San Juan’s majority owner, PNM Resources Inc., offers a distinctly different view, echoing declining coal returns reported by other utilities. A 2022 shutdown will push ratepayers to other energy alternatives now being planned, saving them about $3 to $4 a month on average, PNM has said.

“We could not identify a solution that would make running San Juan Generating Station economical,” said Tom Fallgren, a PNM vice president, in an email.

The potential sale comes as a new clean-energy bill, supported by Governor Lujan Grisham, is working its way through the state legislature. It would require the state to get half of its power from renewable sources by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045, even as other jurisdictions explore small modular reactor strategies to meet future demand. At the same time, the legislation imposes an emissions cap that’s about 60 percent lower than San Juan’s current levels.

In response, Acme is planning to spend $400 million to $800 million to retrofit the facility with carbon capture and sequestration technology that would collect carbon dioxide before it’s released into the atmosphere, Heller said. That would put the facility into compliance with the pending legislation and, at the same time, help generate revenue for the plant.

The company estimates the system would cut emissions by as much as 90 percent, and the captured gas could be sold to oil companies, which uses it to enhance well recovery. The bottom line, according to Heller: “A winning financial formula.”

It’s a tricky formula at best. Carbon-capture technology has been controversial, even as new coal plant openings remain rare, expensive to install and unproven at scale. Additionally, to make it work at the San Juan plant, the company would need to figure out how to deliver the CO2 to customers since the nearest pipeline is about 20 miles (32 kilometers) away.

Reducing costs

Acme is also evaluating ways to reduce costs at San Juan, Heller said, including approaches seen at operators extending the life of coal plants under regulatory scrutiny, such as negotiating a cheaper coal-supply contract and qualifying for subsidies.

Farmington’s stake in the plant is less than 10 percent. But under terms of the partnership, the city — population 45,000 — can assume full control of San Juan should the other partners decide to pull out, mirroring policy debates over saving struggling nuclear plants in other regions. That’s given Farmington the legal authority to pursue the plant’s sale to Acme.

At the end of the day, nobody wants the energy

“We respectfully disagree with the notion that the plant is not economical,” Farmington Mayor Nate Duckett said by email. Ducket said he’s in better position than the other owners to assess San Juan’s importance “because we sit at Ground Zero.”

The city’s economy would benefit from keeping open both the plant and a nearby coal mine that feeds it, according to Duckett, with operations that contribute about $170 million annually to the local area.

While the loss of those jobs would be painful to some, Camilla Feibelman, a Sierra Club chapter director, is hard pressed to see a business case for keeping San Juan open, pointing to sector closures such as the Three Mile Island shutdown as evidence of shifting economics. The plant isn’t economical now, and would almost certainly be less so after investing the capital to add carbon-capture systems.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Lake Erie Connector Investment advances a 1,000 MW HVDC transmission link connecting Ontario to the PJM Interconnection, enhancing grid reliability, clean power trade, and GHG reductions through a public-private partnership led by CIB and ITC.

Key Points

A $1.7B public-private HVDC project linking Ontario and PJM to boost reliability, cut GHGs, and enable clean power trade.

✅ 1,000 MW, 117 km HVDC link between Ontario and PJM

✅ $655M CIB and $1.05B private financing, ITC to own-operate

✅ Cuts system costs, boosts reliability, reduces GHG emissions

The Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) and ITC Investment Holdings (ITC) have signed an agreement in principle to invest $1.7 billion in the Lake Erie Connector project.

Under the terms of the agreement, the CIB will invest up to $655 million or up to 40% of the project cost. ITC, a subsidiary of Fortis Inc., and private sector lenders will invest up to $1.05 billion, the balance of the project's capital cost.

The CIB and ITC Investment Holdings signed an agreement in principle to invest $1.7B in the Lake Erie Connector project.

The Lake Erie Connector is a proposed 117 kilometre underwater transmission line connecting Ontario with the PJM Interconnection, the largest electricity market in North America, and aligns with broader regional efforts such as the Maine transmission line to import Quebec hydro to strengthen cross-border interconnections.

The 1,000 megawatt, high-voltage direct current connection will help lower electricity costs for customers in Ontario and improve the reliability and security of Ontario's energy grid, complementing emerging solutions like battery storage across the province. The Lake Erie Connector will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and be a source of low-carbon electricity in the Ontario and U.S. electricity markets.

During construction, the Lake Erie Connector is expected to create 383 jobs per year and drive more than $300 million in economic activity, and complements major clean manufacturing investments like a $1.6 billion battery plant in the Niagara Region that supports the EV supply chain. Over its life, the project will provide 845 permanent jobs and economic benefits by boosting Ontario's GDP by $8.8 billion.

The project will also help Ontario to optimize its current infrastructure, avoid costs associated with existing production curtailments or shutdowns. It can leverage existing generation capacity and transmission lines to support electricity demand, alongside new resources such as the largest battery storage project planned for southwestern Ontario.

ITC continues its discussions with First Nations communities and is working towards meaningful participation in the near term and as the project moves forward to financial close.

The CIB anticipates financial close late in 2021, pending final project transmission agreements, with construction commencing soon after. ITC will own the transmission line and be responsible for all aspects of design, engineering, construction, operations and maintenance.

ITC acquired the Lake Erie Connector project in August 2014 and it has received all necessary regulatory and permitting approvals, including a U.S. Presidential Permit and approval from the Canada Energy Regulator.

This is the CIB's first investment commitment in a transmission project and another example of the CIB's momentum to quickly implement its $10B Growth Plan, amid broader investments in green energy solutions in British Columbia that support clean growth.

Endorsements

This project will allow Ontario to export its clean, non-emitting power to one of the largest power markets in the world and, as a result, benefit Canadians economically while also significantly contributing to greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the PJM market. The project allows Ontario to better manage peak capacity and meet future reliability needs in a more sustainable way. This is a true win-win for both Canada and the U.S., both economically and environmentally.
Ehren Cory, CEO, Canada Infrastructure Bank

The Lake Erie Connector has tremendous potential to generate customer savings, help achieve shared carbon reduction goals, and increase electricity system reliability and flexibility. We look forward to working with the CIB, provincial and federal governments to support a more affordable, customer-focused system for Ontarians. 
Jon Jipping, EVP & COO, ITC Investment Holdings Inc., a subsidiary of Canadian-based Fortis Inc. 

We are encouraged by this recent announcement by the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation has an interest in projects within our historic treaty lands that have environmental benefits and that offer economic participation for our community.
Chief Stacey Laforme, Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation

While our evaluation of the project continues, we recognize this project can contribute to the economic resilience of our Shareholder, the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. Subject to the successful conclusion of our collaborative efforts with ITC, we look forward to our involvement in building the necessary infrastructure that enable Ontario's economic engine.
Leonard Rickard, CEO, Mississaugas of the Credit Business Corporation

The Lake Erie Connector demonstrates the advantages of public-private partnerships to develop critical infrastructure that delivers greater value to Ontarians. Connecting Ontario's electricity grid to the PJM electricity market will bring significant, tangible benefits to our province. This new connection will create high-quality jobs, improve system flexibility, and allow Ontario to export more excess electricity to promote cost-savings for Ontario's electricity consumers.
Greg Rickford, Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, Minister of Indigenous Affairs

With the US pledging to achieve a carbon-free electrical grid by 2035, Canada has an opportunity to export clean power, helping to reduce emissions, maximizing clean power use and making electricity more affordable for Canadians. The Lake Erie Connector is a perfect example of that. The Canada Infrastructure Bank's investment will give Ontario direct access to North America's largest electricity market - 13 states and D.C. This is part of our infrastructure plan to create jobs across the country, tackle climate change, and increase Canada's competitiveness in the clean economy, alongside innovation programs like the Hydrogen Innovation Fund that foster clean technology.

Quick Facts

• The Lake Erie Connector is a 1,000 megawatt, 117 kilometre long underwater transmission line connecting Ontario and Pennsylvania.
• The PJM Interconnection is a regional transmission organization coordinating the movement of wholesale electricity in all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.
• The project will help to reduce electricity system costs for customers in Ontario, and aligns with ongoing consultations on industrial electricity pricing and programs, while helping to support future capacity needs.
• The CIB is mandated to invest CAD $35 billion and attract private sector investment into new revenue-generating infrastructure projects that are in the public interest and support Canadian economic growth.
• The investment commitment is subject to final due diligence and approval by the CIB's Board.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Hydro One Pandemic Relief Fund offers COVID-19 financial assistance, payment flexibility, and Winter Relief to Ontario electricity customers facing hardship, with disconnection protection and customer support to help manage bills during the health crisis.

Key Points

COVID-19 aid offering bill credits, payment flexibility, and disconnection protection for electricity customers.

✅ Financial assistance and bill credits for hardship cases

✅ Flexible payment plans and extended Winter Relief

✅ No-disconnect policy and dedicated customer support hours

We are pleased to announce a Pandemic Relief Fund to assist customers affected by the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). As part of our commitment to customers, we will offer financial assistance as well as increased payment flexibility to customers experiencing hardship. The fund is designed to support customers impacted by these events and those that may experience further impacts.

In addition to this, we've also extended our Winter Relief program, aligning with our ban on disconnections policy so no customer experiencing any hardship has to worry about potential disconnection.

We recognize that this is a difficult time for everyone and we want our customers to know that we’re here to support them. We hope this fund and the added measures, such as extended off-peak rates that help provide our customers peace of mind so they can concentrate on what matters most — keeping their loved ones safe.

If you are concerned about paying your bill, are experiencing hardship or have been impacted by the pandemic, including electricity relief announced by the province, we want to help you. Call us to discuss the fund and see what options are available for you.

CUSTOMER CONTACT CENTRE HOURS
Call us at 1-888-664-9376

Monday to Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

KEEPING ONTARIANS AND OUR ELECTRICITY SYSTEM SAFE
We recognize the critical role we play in powering communities across the province and our support for the Province of Ontario during COVID-19. This is a responsibility to employees, customers, businesses and the people of Ontario that we take very seriously.

Since the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak began, Hydro One’s Pandemic Team along with our leadership, have been actively monitoring the issues to ensure we can continue to deliver the service Ontarians depend on while keeping our employees, customers and the public safe, even as there has been no cut in peak hydro rates yet for self-isolating customers across Ontario. While the risk in Ontario remains low, we believe we can best protect our people and our operations by taking proactive measures.

As information continues to evolve, our leadership team along with the Pandemic Planning Team and our Emergency Operations Centre are committed to maintaining business continuity while minimizing risk to employees and communities.

Over the days and weeks to come, we will work with the sector and government, which is preparing to extend disconnect moratoriums across the province, to enhance safety protocols and champion the needs of electricity customers in Ontario.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Puerto Rico Tesla Solar Power enables resilient microgrids using batteries, renewable energy, and energy storage to rebuild the hurricane-damaged grid, reduce fossil fuels, cut costs, and accelerate recovery with scalable solar-plus-storage solutions.

Key Points

A solar-plus-storage plan using Tesla microgrids and batteries to restore Puerto Rico's cleaner, resilient power.

✅ Microgrids cut diesel reliance and harden critical facilities.

✅ Batteries stabilize the grid and shave peak demand costs.

✅ Scalable solar enables faster, modular disaster recovery.

Puerto Rico’s governor Ricardo Rossello has said that he will speak to Elon Musk after the Tesla inventor said his innovative solar and battery systems could be used to restore electricity on the island.

Mr Musk was mentioned in a tweet, referencing an article discussing ways to restore Puerto Rico’s power grid, which was knocked out by Hurricane Maria on September 20.

Restoring the ageing and already-weakened network has proved slow: as of Friday 90 per cent of the island remained without power. The island’s electricity company was declared bankrupt in July.

Mr Musk was asked: “Could @ElonMusk go in and rebuild #PuertoRico’s electricity system with independent solar & battery systems?”

The South African entrepreneur replied: “The Tesla team has done this for many smaller islands around the world, but there is no scalability limit, so it can be done for Puerto Rico too.

“Such a decision would be in the hands of the PR govt, PUC, any commercial stakeholders and, most importantly, the people of PR.”

His suggestion was seized upon by Mr Rossello, who then tweeted: “@ElonMusk Let's talk. Do you want to show the world the power and scalability of your #TeslaTechnologies?

“PR could be that flagship project.”

Mr Musk replied that he was happy to talk.

Restoring power to the battered island is a priority for the government, and improving grid resilience remains critical, with hospitals still running on generators and the 3.5 million people struggling with a lack of refrigeration or air conditioning.

Radios broadcast messages advising people how to keep their insulin cool, and doctors are concerned about people not being able to access dialysis.

And, with its power grid wiped out, the Caribbean island could totally rethink the way it meets its energy needs, drawing on examples like a resilient school microgrid built locally. 

“This is an opportunity to completely transform the way electricity is generated in Puerto Rico and the federal government should support this,” said Judith Enck, the former administrator for the region with the environmental protection agency.

“They need a clean energy renewables plan and not spending hurricane money propping up the old fossil fuel infrastructure.”

Forty-seven per cent of Puerto Rico’s power needs were met by burning oil last year - a very expensive and outdated method of electricity generation. For the US as a whole, petroleum accounted for just 0.3 per cent of all electricity generated in 2016 even as the grid isn’t yet running on 100% renewable energy nationwide.

The majority of the rest of Puerto Rico’s energy came courtesy of coal and natural gas, with renewables, which later faced pandemic-related setbacks, accounting for only two per cent of electricity generation.

“In that time of extreme petroleum prices, the utility was borrowing money and buying oil in order to keep those plants operating,” said Luis Martinez, a lawyer at natural resources defense council and former special aide to the president of Puerto Rico’s environmental quality board.

“That precipitated the bankruptcy that followed. It was in pretty poor shape before the storm. Once the storm got there, it finished the job.”

But Mr Martinez told the website Earther that it might be difficult to secure the financing for rebuilding Puerto Rico with renewables from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) funds.

“A lot of distribution lines were on wood poles,” he said.

“Concrete would make them more resistant to winds, but that would potentially not be authorized under the use of FEMA funds.

"We’re looking into if some of those requirements can be waived so rebuilding can be more resilient.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News