AEP to work on coal plant through December

Ontario Global Adjustment and ICI balance hydro rates, renewable cost shift, and peak demand. Class A and Class B customers face demand response decisions amid pandemic occupancy uncertainty and volatile GA charges through 2022.

Key Points

A pricing model where GA costs and ICI peak allocation shape Class A/B bills, driven by renewables cost shifts.

✅ Renewable cost shift trims GA; larger Class A savings expected.

✅ Class A peak strategy returns; occupancy uncertainty persists.

✅ Class B faces volatile GA; limited levers beyond efficiency.

Ontario’s large commercial electricity customers can approach the looming annual decision about their billing structure for the 12 months beginning July 1 with the assurance of long-term relief on a portion of their costs, amid changes coming for electricity consumers that could affect planning. That’s to be weighed against uncertainties around energy demand and whether a locked-in cost allocation formula that looked favourable in pre-pandemic times will remain so until June 30, 2022.

“The biggest unknown is we just don’t know when the people are coming back,” Jon Douglas, director of sustainability with Menkes Property Management Services, reflected during a webinar sponsored by the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) of Greater Toronto last week. “The occupancy in our office buildings this fall, and going into the new year, could really impact the outcome of the decision.”

After a year of operational upheaval and more modifications to provincial electricity pricing policies, BOMA Toronto’s regularly scheduled workshop ahead of the June 15 deadline for eligible customers to opt into the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI) program had a lot of ground to cover. Notably, beginning in January, all commercial customers have seen a reduction in the global adjustment (GA) component of their monthly hydro bills after the Ontario government shifted costs associated with contracted non-hydroelectric renewable supply to reduce the burden on industrial ratepayers from electricity rates to the general provincial account — a move that trims approximately $258 million per month from the total GA charged to industrial and commercial customers. However, they won’t garner the full benefit of that until 2022 since they’re currently repaying about $333 million in GA costs that were deferred in April, May and June of 2020.

Renewable cost shift pares the global adjustment
For now, Ontario government officials estimate the renewable cost shift equates to a 12 per cent discount relative to 2020 prices, even as typical bills may rise about 2% as fixed pricing ends in some cases. Once last year’s GA deferral is repaid at the end of 2021, they project the average Class A customer participating in the ICI program should realize a 16 per cent saving on the total hydro bill, while Class B customers paying the GA on a volumetric per kilowatt-hour (kWh) basis will see a slightly more moderate 15 per cent decrease.

“This is the biggest change to electricity pricing that’s happened since the introduction of ICI,” Tim Christie, director of electricity policy, economics and system planning for Ontario’s Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, told online workshop attendees. “The government is funding the out-of-market costs of renewables. It does tail off into the 2030s as those contracts (for wind, solar and biomass generation) expire, but over the next eight-ish years, it’s pretty steady at around just over $3 billion per year.”

Extrapolating from 2020 costs, he pegged average electricity costs at roughly 9.1 cents/kWh for Class A commercial customers and 13.2 cents/kWh for Class B, a point of concern for Ontario manufacturers facing high rates as well. However, energy management specialists suggest actual 2021 numbers haven’t proved that out.

“In commercial buildings, we’re averaging 10 to 12 cents for Class A in 2021, and we’re seeing more than that for about 14, 15 cents for Class B,” reported Scott Rouse, managing partner with the consulting firm, Energy@Work.

GA costs for Class B customers dropped nearly 30 per cent in the first four months of 2021 compared to the last four months of 2020, when they averaged 11.8 cents/kWh. Thus far, though, there have been significant month-to-month fluctuations, with a low of 5.04 cents/kWh in February and a high of 10.9 cents/kWh in April contributing to the four-month average of 8.3 cents/kWh.

“In 2020, system-wide GA very often averaged more than $1 billion per month,” Rouse said. “This February it dropped to $500 million, which was really quite surprising. So it is a very volatile cost.”

Although welcome, the renewable cost shift does alter the payback on energy-saving investments, particularly for demand response mechanisms like energy storage. When combined with pandemic-related uncertainty and a series of policy and program reversals alongside calls to clean up Ontario’s hydro policy in recent years, the industry’s appetite for some more capital-intensive technologies appears to be flagging.

“Volatility puts a pause on some of the innovation,” said Terry Flynn, general manager with BentallGreenOak and chair of BOMA Toronto’s energy committee. “It could be a leading edge, but it might be a bleeding edge that won’t bear any fruit because the way the commodity costs are structured will change.”

“There’s kind of a wait-and-see approach on some of these bigger investments,” Douglas concurred.

Industrial Conservation Initiative underpins commercial class divide
Turning to the ICI, Class A customers — defined as those with average monthly energy demand of at least 1 megawatt (MW) — encountered some unexpected changes to the program rules during 2020. Meanwhile, Class B customers — encompassing the vast share of commercial properties smaller than about 350,000 square feet — confront the persistent reality of electricity cost allocation that offloads the burden from larger players onto them.

Through the ICI, participating Class A customers pay a share of the global adjustment that’s prorated to their energy use during the five hours of the period from May 1 to April 30 when the highest overall system demand is recorded. This gives Class A customers the opportunity to lock in a favourable factor for calculating their share of monthly system-wide global adjustment costs if they can successful project and curtail energy loads during those five hours of peak demand. On the flipside, Class B customers pay the remainder of those system-wide costs, on a straightforward per-kWh basis, once Class A payments have been reconciled.

“Class B has sometimes been regarded as the forgotten middle child of the customer classes in Ontario where all the shifted costs in the system kind of pile up,” acknowledged Mark Olsheski, vice president, energy and environment, with Sussex Strategy Group. “Likewise, there can be big unpredictable and uncontrollable swings in the global adjustment rate from month to month and, outside of pure energy efficiency, there really is precious little opportunity or empowerment for a Class B customer to take actions to lower their bills.”

Nevertheless, COVID-19 presents a few extra hiccups for Class A customers this year. Conventionally, late May is when they receive notification of the cost allocation factor that would be used to determine their GA for the upcoming July 1 to June 30 period. This year, though, all current ICI participants will retain the factor they secured by responding to the five hours of peak demand during the 12 months from May 1, 2019 to April 30, 2020 after the Ontario government placed a temporary halt on the peak demand response aspect of the program last summer. Regardless, eligible ICI participants must formally opt into the program by June 15 or they will be billed as Class B customers.

Peak chasing resumes for summer 2021
Since peak demand hours conventionally occur from June to September, Class A customers will once again be studying forecasts intently and preparing to respond via Peak Perks as the heat wave season sets in. That should help alleviate some of the system stresses that arose last summer — prompting policy-makers to reject lobbying for a continued pause on peak demand response.

“The policy rationale was to allow consumers to focus on their operations when recovering from COVID as opposed to reducing peaks. The other issue was that we did not expect the peaks to be high last summer given COVID shutdowns,” Christie recounted. “But due to some hot weather, more people at home and also the lack of ICI response, we saw peaks we haven’t seen in many, many years come up last summer. So the peak hiatus has ended and this summer we’ll be back to responding to ICI as per normal.”

Among Class A customers, owners/managers of office and retail facilities generally have the most to lose from a billing formula tied to the energy demand of more densely occupied buildings in the summer of 2019. However, they could be much more competitively positioned for 2022-23 if their buildings remain below full occupancy and energy demand stays lower than usual this summer.

“Where we can improve is the IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) and the LDCs (local distribution companies) need to help customers get their real-time data, especially in light of the phantom demand issue, interpret their bills and their Class A versus B scenarios much more easily and comprehensively,” urged Lee Hodgkinson, vice president, technical services, sustainability and ESG, with Dream Unlimited. “ I look for APIs (application programming interface) and direct data flow from the LDCs to the building owners so that we can access that data really easily.”

Given Class A’s historic advantages, few eligible ICI participants are expected to migrate out to Class B. From a sustainability perspective, there’s perhaps more cause to question how the ICI’s 1-MW threshold encourages strategies to move in the other direction.

“You could jack up demand in some buildings and get them into Class A basically by firing up the chillers on the weekend and then pouring cooling outside to get rid of it,” Douglas noted. “That has nothing to do with climate change strategy or sustainability, but it’s a cost- saving strategy, and, sometimes, when you look at the math, it’s hundreds of thousands of dollars you can save.”

Brian Hewson, vice president, consumer protection and industry performance with the Ontario Energy Board (OEB), confirmed the OEB is currently scrutinizing the discrepancy that leaves Class B as the only consumer group with no flexibility to curtail energy load during higher-priced periods, and will be providing advice to the Ministry of Energy. In the interim, that status does, at least, simplify tactics.

“Just reduce your kWh and it doesn’t matter what time of day because you’re paying that fixed rate for 24 hours a day. So if you can curb your demand at night, you get a big bang for your dollar,” Rouse advised.

“We do talk about rates a lot, but if you’re not using it, you’re not paying for it,” Flynn agreed. “A lot of our focus is still on really to try to reduce the number of kilowatts that we use. That seems to be the best thing to do.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

FPL Rate Increase Proposal 2026-2029 outlines $9B base-rate hikes as Florida grows, citing residential demand, grid infrastructure investments, energy mix diversification, and Florida PSC review impacting customer bills, reliability, and fuel price volatility mitigation.

Key Points

A $9B base-rate plan FPL filed with the Florida PSC to fund growth, grid upgrades, and energy diversification through 2029.

✅ Adds 275k since 2021; +335k customers projected by 2029.

✅ Monthly bills rise to about $157 by 2029, up ~22% total.

✅ Investments in poles, wires, transformers, substations, renewables.

Florida Power & Light (FPL), the state's largest utility provider, has submitted a proposal to the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) seeking a substantial increase in customer base rates over the next four years, amid ongoing scrutiny, including a recent hurricane surcharge controversy that heightened public attention.

Rationale Behind the Rate Increase

FPL's request is primarily influenced by Florida's robust population growth. Since 2021, the utility has added about 275,000 customers and projects an additional 335,000 by the end of 2029. This surge necessitates significant investments in transmission and distribution infrastructure, including poles, wires, transformers, and substations, to maintain reliable service. Moreover, FPL aims to diversify its energy mix to shield customers from fuel price volatility, even as the state declined federal solar incentives that could influence renewable adoption, ensuring a stable and sustainable power supply.

Impact on Customer Bills

If approved, the proposed rate increases would affect residential customers as follows:

• 2026: An estimated increase of $11.52 per month, raising the typical bill to $145.66.

• 2027: An additional $6.05 per month, bringing the bill to $151.71.

• 2028: A further increase of $3.64 per month, totaling $155.35.

• 2029: An extra $2.06 per month, resulting in a final bill of $157.41.

These adjustments represent a cumulative increase of approximately 22% over the four-year period, while in other regions some customers face sharper spikes, such as Pennsylvania's winter price increases this season.

Comparison with Previous Rate Hikes

This proposal follows a series of rate increases approved in recent years, as California electricity bills have soared and prompted calls for action in that state. For instance, Tampa Electric Co. (TECO) received approval for rate hikes totaling $287.9 million in 2025, with additional increases planned for 2026 and 2027. Consumer groups have expressed intentions to challenge these rate hikes, indicating a trend of growing scrutiny over utility rate adjustments.

Regulatory Review Process

The PSC is scheduled to review FPL's rate increase proposal in the coming months. A staff recommendation is expected by March 14, 2025, with a final decision anticipated at a commission conference on March 20, 2025. This process allows for public input and thorough evaluation of the proposed rate changes, while elsewhere some utilities anticipate stabilization, such as PG&E's 2025 outlook in California.

Customer and Consumer Advocacy Responses

The proposed rate hikes have elicited concerns from consumer advocacy groups. Organizations like Food & Water Watch have criticized the scale of the increase, labeling it as the largest rate hike request in U.S. history, amid mixed signals such as Gulf Power's one-time 40% bill decrease earlier this year. They argue that such substantial increases could place undue financial strain on households, especially those with fixed incomes.

Additionally, the Florida Public Service Commission has faced challenges in approving rate hikes for other utilities, such as TECO, and a recent Florida court decision on electricity monopolies that may influence the policy landscape, with consumer groups planning to appeal these decisions. This backdrop of heightened scrutiny suggests that FPL's proposal will undergo rigorous examination.

As Florida continues to experience rapid growth, balancing the need for infrastructure development and reliable energy services with the financial impact on consumers remains a critical challenge. The PSC's forthcoming decisions will play a pivotal role in shaping the state's energy landscape, influencing both the economy and the daily lives of Floridians.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Texas Power Grid Reliability faces record peak demand as ERCOT balances renewable energy, wind and solar variability, gas-fired generation, demand response, and transmission limits to prevent blackouts during heat waves and extreme weather.

Key Points

Texas Power Grid Reliability is ERCOT's capacity to meet peak demand with diverse resources while limiting outages.

✅ Record heat drives peak demand across ERCOT.

✅ Variable wind/solar need firm, flexible capacity.

✅ Demand response and reserves reduce blackout risk.

The electric power grid in Texas, which collapsed dramatically during the 2021 winter storm across the state, is being tested again as the state suffers unusually hot summer weather. Demand for electricity has reached new records at a time of rapid change in the mix of power sources as wind and solar ramp up. That’s feeding a debate about the dependability of the state’s power. 

1. Why is the Texas grid under threat again? 

Already the biggest power user in the nation, electricity use in the second most-populous state surged to record levels during heat waves this summer. The jump in demand comes as the state becomes more dependent on intermittent renewable power sources, raising concerns among some critics that more reliance on wind and solar will leave the grid more vulnerable to disruption. Green sources will produce almost 40% of the power in Texas this year, US Energy Information Administration data show. While that trails California’s 52%, Texas is a bigger market. It’s already No. 1 in wind, making it the largest clean energy market in the US. 

2. How is Texas unique? 

The spirit of defiance of the Lone Star State extends to its power grid as well. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or Ercot as the grid operator is known, serves about 90% of the state’s electricity needs and has very few high-voltage transmission lines connecting to nearby grids. It’s a deliberate move to avoid federal oversight of the power market. That means Texas has to be mainly self-reliant and cannot depend on neighbors during extreme conditions. That vulnerability is a dramatic twist for a state that’s also the energy capital of the US, thanks to vast oil and natural gas producing fields. Favorable regulations are also driving a wind and solar boom in Texas. 

3. Why the worry? 

The summer of 2023 will mark the first time all of the state’s needs cannot be met by traditional power plants, like nuclear, coal and gas. A sign of potential trouble came on June 20 when state officials urged residents to conserve power because of low supplies from wind farms and unexpected closures of fossil-fuel generators amid supply-chain constraints that limited availability. As of late July, the grid was holding up, thanks to the help of renewable sources. Solar generation has been coming in close to expected summer capacity, or exceeding it on most days. This has helped offset the hours in the middle of the day when wind speeds died down in West Texas. 

4. Why didn’t the grid’s problems get fixed? 

There is no easy fix. The Texas system allows the price of electricity to swing to match supply and demand. That means high prices — and high profits — drive the development of new power plants. At times spot power prices have been as low as $20-$50 a megawatt-hour versus more than $4,000 during periods of stress. The limitation of this pricing structure was laid bare by the 2021 winter blackouts. Since then, state lawmakers have passed market reforms that require weatherization of critical infrastructure and changed rules to put more money in the pockets of the owners of power generation.  

5. What’s the big challenge? 

There’s a real clash going on over what the grid of the future should look like in Texas and across the country, especially as severe heat raises blackout risks nationally. The challenge is to make sure nuclear and fossil fuel plants that are needed right now don’t retire too early and still allow newer, cleaner technologies to flourish. Some conservative Republicans have blamed renewable energy for destabilizing the grid and have pushed for more fossil-fuel powered generators. Lawmakers passed a controversial $10 billion program providing low-interest loans and grants to build new gas-fired plants using taxpayer money, but Texans ultimately have to vote on the subsidy. 

6. Why do improvements take so long? 

Figuring out how to keep the lights on without overburdening consumers is becoming a greater challenge amid more extreme weather fueled by climate change. As such, changing the rules is often a hotly contested process pitting utilities, generators, manufacturers, electricity retailers and other groups against one another. The process became more politicized after the storm in 2021 with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and lawmakers ordering Ercot to make changes. Building more transmission lines and connecting to other states can help, but such projects are typically tied up for years in red tape.

7. What can be done? 

The price cap for electricity was cut from $9,000/MWh to $5,000 to help avoid the punitive costs seen in the 2021 storm, though prices are allowed to spike more easily. Ercot is also contracting for more reserves to be online to help avoid supply shortfalls and improve reliability for customers, which added $1.7 billion in consumer costs alone last year. Another rule helps some gas generators pay for their fuel costs, while a more recent reform put in price floors when reserves fall to certain levels. Many power experts say that the easiest solution is to pay people to reduce their energy consumption during times of grid stress through so-called demand response programs. Factories, Bitcoin miners and other large users are already compensated to conserve during tight grid conditions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Hydro Crisis highlights soaring electricity rates, costly subsidies, nuclear refurbishments, and stalled renewables in Ontario. Policy missteps, weak planning, and rising natural gas emissions burden ratepayers while energy efficiency and storage remain underused.

Key Points

High power costs and subsidies from policy errors, nuclear refurbishments, stalled efficiency and renewables in Ontario.

✅ $5.6B yearly subsidy masks electricity rates and deficits

✅ Nuclear refurbishments embed rising costs for decades

✅ Efficiency, storage, and DERs stalled amid weak planning

By Mark Winfield

While the troubled Site C and Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam projects in B.C. and Newfoundland and Labrador have drawn a great deal of national attention over the past few months, Ontario has quietly been having a hydro crisis of its own.

One of the central promises in the 2018 platform of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party was to “clean up the hydro mess,” and then-PC leader Doug Ford vowed to fire Hydro One's leadership as part of that effort. There certainly is a mess, with the costs of subsidies taken from general provincial revenues to artificially lower hydro rates nearing $7 billion annually. That is a level approaching the province’s total pre-COVID-19 annual deficit. After only two years, that will also exceed total expected cost overruns of the Site C and Muskrat Falls projects, currently estimated at $12 billion ($6 billion each).

There is no doubt that Doug Ford’s government inherited a significant mess around the province’s electricity system from the previous Liberal governments of former premiers Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. But the Ford government has also demonstrated a remarkable capacity for undoing the things its predecessors had managed to get right while doubling down on their mistakes.

The Liberals did have some significant achievements. Most notably: coal-fired electricity generation, which constituted 25 per cent of the province’s electricity supply in the early 2000s, was phased out in 2014. The phaseout dramatically improved air quality in the province. There was also a significant growth in renewable energy production. From  virtually zero in 2003, the province installed 4,500 MW of wind-powered generation, and 450 MW of solar photovoltaic by 2018, a total capacity more than double that of the Sir Adam Beck Generating Stations at Niagara Falls.

At the same time, public concerns over rising hydro rates flowing from a major reconstruction of the province’s electricity system from 2003 onwards became a central political issue in the province. But rather than reconsider the role of the key drivers of the continuing rate increases – namely the massively expensive and risky refurbishments of the Darlington and Bruce nuclear facilities, the Liberals adopted a financially ruinous Fair Hydro Plan. The central feature of the 2017 plan was a short-term 25 per cent reduction in hydro rates, financed by removing the provincial portion of the HST from hydro bills, and by extending the amortization period for capital projects within the system. The total cost of the plan in terms of lost revenues and financing costs has been estimated in excess of $40 billion over 29 years, with the burden largely falling on future ratepayers and taxpayers.

Decision-making around the electricity system became deeply politicized, and a secret cabinet forecast of soaring prices intensified public debate across Ontario. Legislation adopted by the Wynne government in 2016 eliminated the requirement for the development of system plans to be subject to any form of meaningful regulatory oversight or review. Instead, the system was guided through directives from the provincial cabinet. Major investments like the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments proceeded without meaningful, public, external reviews of their feasibility, costs or alternatives.

The Ford government proceeded to add more layers to these troubles. The province’s relatively comprehensive framework for energy efficiency was effectively dismantled in March, 2019, with little meaningful replacement. That was despite strong evidence that energy efficiency offered the most cost-effective strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and electricity costs.

The Ford government basically retained the Fair Hydro Plan and promised further rate reductions, later tabling legislation to lower electricity rates as well. To its credit, the government did take steps to clarify real costs of the plan. Last year, these were revealed to amount to a de facto $5.6 billion-per-year subsidy coming from general revenues, and rising. That constituted the major portion of the province’s $7.4 billion pre-COVID-19 deficit. The financial hole was deepened further through November’s financial statement, with the addition of a further $1.3 billion subsidy to commercial and industrial consumers. The numbers can only get worse as the costs of the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments become embedded more fully into electricity rates.

The government also quietly dispensed with the last public vestige of an energy planning framework, relieving itself of the requirement to produce a Long-Term Energy Plan every three years. The next plan would normally have been due next month, in February.

Even the gains from the 2014 phaseout of coal-fired electricity are at risk. Major increases are projected in emissions of greenhouse gases, smog-causing nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from natural gas-fired power plants as the plants are run to cover electricity needs during the Bruce and Darlington refurbishments over the next decade. These developments could erode as much as 40 per cent of the improvements in air quality and greenhouse gas emission gained through the coal phaseout.

The province’s activities around renewable energy, energy storage and distributed energy resources are at a standstill, with exception of a few experimental “sandbox” projects, while other jurisdictions face profound electricity-sector change and adapt. Globally, these technologies are seen as the leading edge of energy-system development and decarbonization. Ontario seems to have chosen to make itself an energy innovation wasteland instead.

The overall result is a system with little or no space for innovation that is embedding ever-higher costs while trying to disguise those costs at enormous expense to the provincial treasury and still failing to provide effective relief to low-income electricity consumers.

The decline in electricity demand associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, along with the introduction of a temporary recovery rate for electricity, gives the province an opportunity to step back and consider its next steps with the electricity system. A phaseout of the Fair Hydro Plan electricity-rate reduction and its replacement with a more cost-effective strategy of targeted relief aimed at those most heavily burdened by rising hydro rates, particularly rural and low-income consumers, as reconnection efforts for nonpayment have underscored the hardship faced by many households, would be a good place to start.

Next, the province needs to conduct a comprehensive, public review of electricity options available to it, including additional renewables – the costs of which have fallen dramatically over the past decade – distributed energy resources, hydro imports from Quebec and energy efficiency before proceeding with further nuclear refurbishments.

In the longer term, a transparent, evidence-based process for electricity system planning needs to be established – one that is subject to substantive public and regulatory oversight and review. Finally, the province needs to establish a new organization to be called Energy Efficiency Ontario to revive its efforts around energy efficiency, developing a comprehensive energy-efficiency strategy for the province, covering electricity and natural gas use, and addressing the needs of marginalized communities.

Without these kinds of steps, the province seems destined to continue to lurch from contradictory decision after contradictory decision as the economic and environmental costs of the system’s existing trajectory continue to rise.

Mark Winfield is a professor of environmental studies at York University and co-chair of the university’s Sustainable Energy Initiative.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canadian electricity transmission enables grid resilience, long-distance power trade, and decarbonization by integrating renewables, hydroelectric storage, and HVDC links, providing backup during extreme weather and lowering costs to reach net-zero, clean energy targets.

Key Points

An interprovincial high-voltage grid that shares clean power to deliver reliable, low-cost decarbonization.

✅ Enables resilience by sharing power across weather zones

✅ Integrates renewables with hydro storage via HVDC links

✅ Lowers decarbonization costs through interprovincial trade

As the recent disaster in Texas showed, climate change requires electricity utilities to prepare for extreme events. This “global weirding” is leaving Canadian electricity grids increasingly exposed to harsh weather that leads to more intense storms, higher wind speeds, heatwaves and droughts that can threaten the performance of electricity systems.

The electricity sector must adapt to this changing climate while also playing a central role in mitigating climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced a number of ways, but the electricity sector is expected to play a central role in decarbonization, including powering a net-zero grid by 2050 across Canada. Zero-emissions electricity can be used to electrify transportation, heating and industry and help achieve emissions reduction in these sectors.

Enhancing long-distance transmission is viewed as a cost-effective way to enable a clean and reliable power grid, and to lower the cost of meeting our climate targets. Now is the time to strengthen transmission links in Canada, with concepts like a western Canadian electricity grid gaining traction.

Insurance for climate extremes
An early lesson from the Texas power outages is that extreme conditions can lead to failures across all forms of power supply. The state lost the capacity to generate electricity from natural gas, coal, nuclear and wind simultaneously. But it also lacked cross-border transmission to other electricity systems that could have bolstered supply.

Join thousands of Canadians who subscribe to free evidence-based news.
Long-distance transmission offers the opportunity to escape the correlative clutch of extreme weather, by accessing energy and spare capacity in areas not beset by the same weather patterns. For example, while Texas was in its deep freeze, relatively balmy conditions in California meant there was a surplus of electricity generation capability in that region — but no means to get it to Texas. Building new transmission lines and connections across broader regions, including projects like a hydropower line to New York that expand access, can act as an insurance policy, providing a back-up for regions hit by the crippling effects of climate change.

A transmission tower crumpled under the weight of ice.
The 1998 Quebec ice storm left 3.5 million Quebecers and a million Ontarians, as well as thousands in in New Brunswick, without power. CP Photo/Robert Galbraith
Transmission is also vulnerable to climate disruptions, such as crippling ice storms that leave wires temporarily inoperable. This may mean using stronger poles when building transmission, or burying major high-voltage transmission links, or deploying superconducting cables to reduce losses.

In any event, more transmission links between regions can improve resilience by co-ordinating supply across larger regions. Well-connected grids that are larger than the areas disrupted by weather systems can be more resilient to climate extremes.

Lowering the cost of clean power
Adding more transmission can also play a role in mitigating climate change. Numerous studies have found that building a larger transmission grid allows for greater shares of renewables onto the grid, ultimately lowering the overall cost of electricity.

In a recent study, two of us looked at the role transmission could play in lowering greenhouse gas emissions in Canada’s electricity sector. We found the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is lower when new or enhanced transmission links can be built between provinces.

Average cost increase to electricity in Canada at different levels of decarbonization, with new transmission (black) and without new transmission (red). New transmission lowers the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. (Authors), Author provided
Much of the value of transmission in these scenarios comes from linking high-quality wind and solar resources with flexible zero-emission generation that can produce electricity on demand. In Canada, our system is dominated by hydroelectricity, but most of this hydro capacity is located in five provinces: British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec and Newfoundland and Labrador.

In the west, Alberta and Saskatchewan are great locations for building low-cost wind and solar farms. Enhanced interprovincial transmission would allow Alberta and Saskatchewan to build more variable wind and solar, with the assurance that they could receive backup power from B.C. and Manitoba when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.

When wind and solar are plentiful, the flow of low cost energy can reverse to allow B.C. and Manitoba the opportunity to better manage their hydro reservoir levels. Provinces can only benefit from trading with each other if we have the infrastructure to make that trade possible.

A recent working paper examined the role that new transmission links could play in decarbonizing the B.C. and Alberta electricity systems. We again found that enabling greater electricity trade between B.C. and Alberta can reduce the cost of deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions by billions of dollars a year. Although we focused on the value of the Site C project, in the context of B.C.'s clean energy shift, the analysis showed that new transmission would offer benefits of much greater value than a single hydroelectric project.

The value of enabling new transmission links between Alberta and B.C. as greenhouse gas emissions reductions are pursued. (Authors), Author provided
Getting transmission built
With the benefits that enhanced electricity transmission links can provide, one might think new projects would be a slam dunk. But there are barriers to getting projects built.

First, electricity grids in Canada are managed at the provincial level, most often by Crown corporations. Decisions by the Crowns are influenced not simply by economics, but also by political considerations. If a transmission project enables greater imports of electricity to Saskatchewan from Manitoba, it raises a flag about lost economic development opportunity within Saskatchewan. Successful transmission agreements need to ensure a two-way flow of benefits.

Second, transmission can be expensive. On this front, the Canadian government could open up the purse strings to fund new transmission links between provinces. It has already shown a willingness to do so.

Lastly, transmission lines are long linear projects, not unlike pipelines. Siting transmission lines can be contentious, even when they are delivering zero-emissions electricity. Using infrastructure corridors, such as existing railway right of ways or the proposed Canadian Northern Corridor, could help better facilitate co-operation between regions and reduce the risks of siting transmission lines.

If Canada can address these barriers to transmission, we should find ourselves in an advantageous position, where we are more resilient to climate extremes and have achieved a lower-cost, zero-emissions electricity grid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

World Bank Energy Policy debates financing for coal, oil, gas, and renewables to fight energy poverty, expand grid reliability, ensure baseload power, and balance climate goals with development finance for affordable, reliable electricity access.

Key Points

It outlines the bank's stance on financing fossil fuels and renewables to expand affordable, reliable electricity.

✅ Focus on energy access, baseload reliability, and poverty alleviation

✅ Debate over coal, gas, and renewables in development finance

✅ Geopolitics: China and Russia fill funding gaps, raising risks

Why isn’t the World Bank using all available energy resources in its global efforts to fight poverty? That’s the question I’ve asked World Bank President David Malpass. Nearly two years ago, the multilateral development bank decided to stop supporting critical coal, oil and gas projects that help people in developing countries escape poverty.

Along with 11 other senators, and as a member who votes on whether to give U.S. taxpayer dollars to the World Bank, I am pressing the bank to lift these restrictions. Developing countries desperately need access to a steady supply of affordable, reliable clean electricity to support economic growth.

The World Bank has pulled funding for critical electricity projects in poor countries, including high-efficiency power stations that are fueled by coal, even as efforts to revitalize coal communities with clean energy have grown.

Despite Kosovo having the world’s fifth-largest reserves of coal, the bank announced it would only support new energy projects from renewable sources going forward. Kosovo’s Minister of Economic Development Valdrin Lluka responded: “We don’t have the luxury to do such experiments in a poor country such as Kosovo. … It is in our national security interest to secure base energy inside our country.”

The World Bank’s misguided move comes as 840 million people worldwide are living without electricity, including 70 percent of sub-Saharan Africa, and as the fall in global energy investment may lead to shortages.

Even more troubling, nearly 3 billion people in developing countries rely on fuels like wood and other biomass for cooking and home heating, resulting in serious health problems and premature deaths, and the pandemic saw widespread electricity shut-offs that deepened energy insecurity. In 2016, household smoke killed an estimated 2.6 million people.

The World Bank’s mission is to lift people out of poverty. The bank is now compromising that mission in favor of a political agenda targeting certain energy sources.

With the World Bank blocking financing to affordable and reliable energy projects, Russia and China are stepping up their investments in order to gain geopolitical leverage.

President Vladimir Putin is pursuing Russian oil and gas projects in Mozambique, Gabon, and Angola. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is supporting traditional energy resources, with 36 percent of its power projects from 2014 to 2017 involving coal. South Africa had to turn to the China Development Bank to fund its $1.5 billion coal-fired power plant.

There are real risks for countries partnering with China and Russia on these projects. Developing countries are facing what some are calling China’s “debt trap” diplomacy. These nations have also raised concerns over safety compliance, unfair business practices, and labor standards.

As the bank’s largest contributor, the United States has a duty to make sure U.S. taxpayer dollars are used wisely and effectively. Every U.S. dollar at the World Bank should make a difference for people in the developing world.

My colleagues and I have asked the bank to pursue an all-of-the-above energy strategy as it strives to achieve its mission to end extreme poverty and promote shared prosperity. We will take the bank’s response into account during the congressional appropriations process.

The United States is a top global energy producer. And yet Democrats running for president are pursuing anti-energy policies that would hurt not only the United States but the entire world, with implications for U.S. national security as well.

Utilizing our abundant energy resources has fueled an American energy renaissance and a booming U.S. economy, even as disruptions in coal and nuclear have strained the grid, with millions of new jobs and higher wages.

People who are struggling to survive and thrive in developing countries deserve the same opportunity to access affordable and reliable sources of power.

As Microsoft founder and global philanthropist Bill Gates has noted of renewables: "Many people experiencing energy poverty live in areas without access to the kind of grids that are needed to make those technologies cheap and reliable enough to replace fossil fuels."

Ultimately, there is a role for all sources of energy to help countries alleviate poverty and improve the education, health and wellbeing of their people.

The solution to ending energy poverty does not lie in limiting options, but in using all available options. The World Bank must recommit to ending extreme poverty by helping countries use all of the world’s abundant energy resources. Let’s end energy poverty now.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News