Texas governor voices opposition to climate bill

Hydro One CEO Pay Cap sets executive compensation at $1.5 million under Ontario's provincial directive, linking incentives to transmission and distribution cost reductions, governance improvements, and board pay limits at the electricity utility.

Key Points

The Hydro One CEO Pay Cap limits pay to $1.5M, linking incentives to cost reductions and defined targets.

✅ Base salary set at $500,000 per year.

✅ Incentives capped at $1,000,000, tied to cost cuts.

✅ Board pay capped: chair $120,000; members $80,000.

Hydro One has agreed to cap the annual compensation of its chief executive at $1.5 million, the provincial utility said Friday, acquiescing to the demands of the Progressive Conservative government.

The CEO's base salary will be set at $500,000 per year, while short-term and long-term incentives are limited to $1 million. Performance targets under the pay plan will include the CEO's contributions to reductions in transmission and distribution costs, even as Hydro One has pursued a bill redesign to clarify charges for customers.

The framework represents a notable political victory for Premier Doug Ford, who vowed to fire Hydro One's CEO and board during the campaign and promised to reduce the annual earnings of Hydro One's board members.

In February, the province issued a directive to the board, ordering it to pay the utility's CEO no more than the $1.5 million figure it has now agreed to, as part of a broader push to lower electricity rates across Ontario.

Hydro One and the government had been at loggerheads over executive compensation, with the company refusing repeated requests to slash the CEO pay below $2,775,000. The board argued it would have difficulty recruiting suitable leaders for anything less, even as customers contend with a recovery rate that could raise hydro bills.

Further, the company agreed to pay the board chair no more than $120,000 annually and board members no more than $80,000 — figures Energy Minister Greg Rickford had outlined in his directive last month, amid calls for cleaning up Ontario's hydro mess from policy commentators.

"Hydro One's compliance with this directive allows us to move forward as a province. It sets the company on the right course for the future, proving that it can operate as a top-class electricity utility while reining in executive compensation and increasing public transparency," Rickford said in a statement issued Friday morning.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Shell's Industrial Electricity Supply Strategy targets UK and US industrial customers, leveraging gas-to-power, renewables, long-term PPAs, and energy transition momentum to disrupt utilities, cut costs, and secure demand in the evolving electricity market.

Key Points

Shell will sell power directly to industrial clients, leveraging gas, renewables, and PPAs to secure demand and pricing.

✅ Direct power sales to industrials in UK and US

✅ Leverages gas-to-power, renewables, and flexible sourcing

✅ Targets long-term PPAs, price stability, and demand security

Royal Dutch Shell’s decision to sell electricity direct to industrial customers is an intelligent and creative one. The shift is strategic and demonstrates that oil and gas majors are capable of adapting to a new world as the transition to a lower carbon economy develops. For those already in the business of providing electricity it represents a dangerous competitive threat. For the other oil majors it poses a direct challenge on whether they are really thinking about the future sufficiently strategically.

The move starts small with a business in the UK that will start trading early next year, in a market where the UK’s second-largest electricity operator has recently emerged, signaling intensifying competition. Shell will supply the business operations as a first step and it will then expand. But Britain is not the limit — Shell recently announced its intention of making similar sales in the US. Historically, oil and gas companies have considered a move into electricity as a step too far, with the sector seen as oversupplied and highly politicised because of sensitivity to consumer price rises. I went through three reviews during my time in the industry, each of which concluded that the electricity business was best left to someone else. What has changed? I think there are three strands of logic behind the strategy.

First, the state of the energy market. The price of gas in particular has fallen across the world over the last three years to the point where the International Energy Agency describes the current situation as a “glut”. Meanwhile, Shell has been developing an extensive range of gas assets, with more to come. In what has become a buyer’s market it is logical to get closer to the customer — establishing long-term deals that can soak up the supply, while options such as storing electricity in natural gas pipes gain attention in Europe. Given its reach, Shell could sign contracts to supply all the power needed by the UK’s National Health Service or with the public sector as a whole as well as big industrial users. It could agree long-term contracts with big businesses across the US.

To the buyers, Shell offers a high level of security from multiple sources with prices presumably set at a discount to the market. The mutual advantage is strong. Second, there is the transition to a lower carbon world. No one knows how fast this will move, but one thing is certain: electricity will be at the heart of the shift with power demand increasing in transportation, industry and the services sector as oil and coal are displaced. Shell, with its wide portfolio, can match inputs to the circumstances and policies of each location. It can match its global supplies of gas to growing Asian markets, including China’s 2060 electricity share projections, while developing a renewables-based electricity supply chain in Europe. The new company can buy supplies from other parts of the group or from outside. It has already agreed to buy all the power produced from the first Dutch offshore wind farm at Egmond aan Zee.

The move gives Shell the opportunity to enter the supply chain at any point — it does not have to own power stations any more than it now owns drilling rigs or helicopters. The third key factor is that the electricity market is not homogenous. The business of supplying power can be segmented. The retail market — supplying millions of households — may be under constant scrutiny, as efforts to fix the UK’s electricity grid keep infrastructure in the headlines, with suppliers vilified by the press and governments forced to threaten price caps but supplying power to industrial users is more stable and predictable, and done largely out of the public eye. The main industrial and commercial users are major companies well able to negotiate long-term deals.

Given its scale and reputation, Shell is likely to be a supplier of choice for industrial and commercial consumers and potentially capable of shaping prices. This is where the prospect of a powerful new competitor becomes another threat to utilities and retailers whose business models are already under pressure. In the European market in particular, electricity pricing mechanisms are evolving and public policies that give preference to renewables have undermined other sources of supply — especially those produced from gas. Once-powerful companies such as RWE and EON have lost much of their value as a result. In the UK, France and elsewhere, public and political hostility to price increases have made retail supply a risky and low-margin business at best. If the industrial market for electricity is now eaten away, the future for the existing utilities is desperate.

Shell’s move should raise a flag of concern for investors in the other oil and gas majors. The company is positioning itself for change. It is sending signals that it is now viable even if oil and gas prices do not increase and that it is not resisting the energy transition. Chief executive Ben van Beurden said last week that he was looking forward to his next car being electric. This ease with the future is rather rare. Shareholders should be asking the other players in the old oil and gas sector to spell out their strategies for the transition.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Washington-Led Lawsuit Against Energy Emergency challenges President Trump's executive order, citing state rights, environmental reviews, permitting, and federal overreach; coalition argues record energy output undermines emergency claims in Seattle federal court.

Key Points

Multistate suit to void Trump's energy emergency, alleging federal overreach and weakened environmental safeguards.

✅ Challenges executive order's legal basis and scope

✅ Claims expedited permitting skirts environmental reviews

✅ Seeks to halt emergency permits for non-emergencies

In a significant legal move, Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown has spearheaded a coalition of 15 states in filing a lawsuit against President Donald Trump's executive order declaring a national energy emergency. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Seattle on May 9, 2025, challenges the legality of the emergency declaration, which aims to expedite permitting processes for fossil fuel projects in pursuit of an energy dominance vision by bypassing key environmental reviews.

Background of the Energy Emergency Declaration

President Trump's executive order, issued on January 20, 2025, asserts that the United States faces an inadequate and unreliable energy grid, particularly affecting the Northeast and West Coast regions. The order directs federal agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior, to utilize "any lawful emergency authorities" to facilitate the development of domestic energy resources, with a focus on oil, gas, and coal projects. This includes expediting reviews under the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act, potentially reducing public input and environmental oversight.

Legal Grounds for the Lawsuit

The coalition of states, led by Washington and California, argues that the emergency declaration is an overreach of presidential authority, echoing disputes over the Affordable Clean Energy rule in federal courts. They contend that U.S. energy production is already at record levels, and the declaration undermines state rights and environmental protections. The lawsuit seeks to have the executive order declared unlawful and to halt the issuance of emergency permits for non-emergency projects. 

Implications for Environmental Protections

Critics of the energy emergency declaration express concern that it could lead to significant environmental degradation. By expediting permitting processes, including geothermal permitting, and reducing public participation, the order may allow projects to proceed without adequate consideration of their impact on water quality, wildlife habitats, and cultural resources. Environmental advocates argue that such actions could set a dangerous precedent, enabling future administrations to bypass essential environmental safeguards under the guise of national emergencies, even as the EPA advances new pollution limits for coal and gas plants to address the climate crisis.

Political and Legal Reactions

The Trump administration defends the executive order, asserting that the president has the authority to declare national emergencies and that the energy emergency is necessary to address perceived deficiencies in the nation's energy infrastructure and potential electricity pricing changes debated by industry groups. However, legal experts suggest that the broad application of emergency powers in this context may face challenges in court. The outcome of the lawsuit could have significant implications for the balance of power between state and federal authorities, as well as the future of environmental regulations in the United States.

The legal challenge led by Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown represents a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over energy policy and environmental protection. As the lawsuit progresses through the courts, it will likely serve as a bellwether for future conflicts between state and federal governments regarding the scope of executive authority and the preservation of environmental standards, amid ongoing efforts to expand uranium and nuclear energy programs nationwide. The outcome may set a precedent for how national emergencies are declared and managed, particularly concerning their impact on state governance and environmental laws.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Clean Grid Plan outlines emissions-free electricity growth, renewable energy procurement, nuclear expansion at Bruce and Darlington, reduced natural gas, grid reliability, and net-zero alignment to meet IESO demand forecasts and EV manufacturing loads.

Key Points

A plan to expand emissions-free power via renewables and nuclear, cut natural gas use, and meet growing demand.

✅ Targets renewables, hydro, and nuclear capacity growth

✅ Aims to reduce reliance on gas for grid reliability

✅ Aligns with IESO demand forecasts and EV manufacturing loads

Ontario is working toward filling all of the province’s quickly growing electricity needs with emissions-free sources, including a plan to secure new renewable generation and clean power options, but isn’t quite ready to commit to a moratorium on natural gas.

Energy Minister Todd Smith announced Monday a plan to address growing energy needs for 2030 to 2050 — the Independent Electricity System Operator projects Ontario’s electricity demand could double by mid-century — and next steps involve looking for new wind, solar and hydroelectric power.

“While we may not need to start building today, government and those in the energy sector need to start planning immediately, so we have new clean, zero-emissions projects ready to go when we need them,” Smith said in Windsor, Ont.

The strategy also includes two nuclear projects announced last week — a new large-scale nuclear plant at Bruce Power on the shore of Lake Huron and three new small modular reactors at the site of the Darlington nuclear plant east of Toronto.

Those projects, enough to power six million homes, will help Ontario end its reliance on natural gas to generate electricity, said Smith, but committing to a natural gas moratorium in 2027 and eliminating natural gas by 2050 is contingent on the federal government helping to speed up the new nuclear facilities.

“Today’s report, the Powering Ontario’s Growth plan, commits us to working towards a 100 per cent clean grid,” Smith said in an interview.

“Hopefully the federal government can get on board with our intentions to build this clean generation as quickly as possible … That will put us in a much better position to use our natural gas facilities less in the future, if we can get those new projects online.”

The IESO has said that natural gas is required to ensure supply and stability in the short to medium term, as Ontario works on balancing demand and emissions across the grid, but that it will also increase greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector.

The province is expected to face increased demand for electricity from expanded electric vehicle use and manufacturing in the coming years, even as a $400-billion cost estimate for greening the grid is debated.

Keith Brooks, programs director for Environmental Defence, said the provincial plan could have been much more robust, containing firm timelines and commitments.

“This plan does not commit to getting emissions out of the system,” he said.

“It doesn’t commit to net zero, doesn’t set a timeline for a net zero goal or have any projection around emissions from Ontario’s electricity sector going forward. In fact, it’s not really a plan. It doesn’t set out any real goals and it doesn’t it doesn’t project what Ontario’s supply mix might look like.”

The Canadian Climate Institute applauded the plan’s focus on reducing reliance on gas-fired generation and emphasizing non-emitting generation, but also said there are still some question marks.

“The plan is silent on whether the province intends to construct new gas-fired generation facilities,” even as new gas plant expansions are proposed, senior research director Jason Dion wrote in a statement.

“The province should avoid building new gas plants since cost-effective alternatives are available, and such facilities are likely to end up as stranded assets. The province’s timeline for reaching net zero generation is also unclear. Canada and other G7 countries have set a target for 2035, something Ontario will need to address if it wants to remain competitive.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Wind Power Policy Shift signals renewed investment in renewable energy, wind farms, and grid resilience, aligning with climate goals, lower electricity costs, job creation, and turbine technology for cleaner, diversified power.

Key Points

A provincial pivot to expand wind energy, meet climate goals, lower costs, and boost jobs across Ontario’s power system.

✅ Diversifies Ontario's grid with scalable renewable capacity.

✅ Targets emissions cuts while stabilizing electricity prices.

✅ Spurs rural investment, supply chains, and skilled jobs.

Ontario’s energy landscape is undergoing a significant transformation as Premier Doug Ford makes a notable shift in his approach to wind power. This change represents a strategic pivot in the province’s energy policy, potentially altering the future of Ontario’s power generation, environmental goals, and economic prospects.

The Backdrop: Ford’s Initial Stance on Wind Power

When Doug Ford first assumed the role of Premier in 2018, his administration was marked by a strong stance against renewable energy projects, including wind power, with Ford later saying he was proud of tearing up contracts as part of this shift. Ford’s government inherited a legacy of ambitious renewable energy commitments from the previous Liberal administration under Kathleen Wynne, which had invested heavily in wind and solar energy. The Ford government, however, was critical of these initiatives, arguing that they resulted in high energy costs and a surplus of power that was not always needed.

In 2019, Ford’s government began rolling back several renewable energy projects, including wind farms, and was soon tested by the Cornwall wind farm ruling that scrutinized a cancellation. This move was driven by a promise to reduce electricity bills and cut what was perceived as wasteful spending on green energy. The cancellation of several wind projects led to frustration among environmental advocates and the renewable energy sector, who viewed the decision as a setback for Ontario’s climate goals.

The Shift: Embracing Wind Power

Fast forward to 2024, and Premier Ford’s administration is taking a markedly different approach. The recent policy shift, which moves to reintroduce renewable projects, indicates a newfound openness to wind power, reflecting a broader acknowledgment of the changing dynamics in energy needs and environmental priorities.

Several factors appear to have influenced this shift:

1. Rising Energy Demands and Climate Goals: Ontario’s growing energy demands, coupled with the pressing need to address climate change, have necessitated a reevaluation of the province’s energy strategy. As Canada commits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to cleaner energy sources, wind power is increasingly seen as a crucial component of this strategy. Ford’s change in direction aligns with these national and global goals.

2. Economic Considerations: The economic landscape has also evolved since Ford’s initial opposition to wind power. The cost of wind energy has decreased significantly over the past few years, making it a more competitive and viable option compared to traditional energy sources, as competitive wind power gains momentum in markets worldwide. Additionally, the wind energy sector promises substantial job creation and economic benefits, which are appealing in the context of post-pandemic recovery and economic growth.

3. Public Opinion and Pressure: Public opinion and advocacy groups have played a role in shaping policy. There has been a growing demand from Ontarians for more sustainable and environmentally friendly energy solutions. The Ford administration has been responsive to these concerns, recognizing the importance of addressing public and environmental pressures.

4. Technological Advancements: Advances in wind turbine technology have improved efficiency and reduced the impact on wildlife and local communities. Modern wind farms are less intrusive and more effective, addressing some of the concerns that were previously associated with wind power.

Implications of the Policy Shift

The implications of Ford’s shift towards wind power are far-reaching. Here are some key areas affected by this change:

1. Energy Portfolio Diversification: By reembracing wind power, Ontario will diversify its energy portfolio, reducing its reliance on fossil fuels and increasing the proportion of renewable energy in the mix. This shift will contribute to a more resilient and sustainable energy system.

2. Environmental Impact: Increased investment in wind power will contribute to Ontario’s efforts to combat climate change. Wind energy is a clean, renewable source that produces no greenhouse gas emissions during operation. This aligns with broader environmental goals and helps mitigate the impact of climate change.

3. Economic Growth and Job Creation: The wind power sector has the potential to drive significant economic growth and create jobs. Investments in wind farms and associated infrastructure can stimulate local economies, particularly in rural areas where many wind farms are located.

4. Energy Prices: While the initial shift away from wind power was partly motivated by concerns about high energy costs, including exposure to costly cancellation fees in some cases, the decreasing cost of wind energy could help stabilize or even lower electricity prices in the long term. As wind power becomes a larger component of Ontario’s energy supply, it could contribute to a more stable and affordable energy market.

Moving Forward: Challenges and Opportunities

Despite the positive aspects of this policy shift, there are challenges to consider, and other provinces have faced setbacks such as the Alberta wind farm scrapped by TransAlta that illustrate potential hurdles. Integrating wind power into the existing grid requires careful planning and investment in grid infrastructure. Additionally, addressing local concerns about wind farms, such as their impact on landscapes and wildlife, will be crucial to gaining broader acceptance.

Overall, Doug Ford’s shift towards wind power represents a significant and strategic change in Ontario’s energy policy. It reflects a broader understanding of the evolving energy landscape and the need for a sustainable and economically viable energy future. As the province navigates this new direction, the success of this policy will depend on effective implementation, ongoing stakeholder engagement, and a commitment to balancing environmental, economic, and social considerations, even as the electricity future debate continues among party leaders.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

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

Key Points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News