Energy storage key to EV plans

Ontario Poised to Miss 2030 Emissions Target highlights how rising greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation and natural gas power plants threaten Ontario’s climate goals, environmental sustainability, and clean energy transition efforts amid growing economic and policy challenges.

Why is Ontario Poised to Miss 2030 Emissions Target?

Ontario Poised to Miss 2030 Emissions Target examines the province’s setback in meeting climate goals due to higher power-sector emissions and shifting energy policies.

✅ Rising greenhouse gas emissions from gas-fired electricity generation

✅ Climate policy uncertainty and missed environmental targets

✅ Balancing clean energy transition with economic pressures

Ontario’s path toward meeting its 2030 greenhouse gas emissions target has taken a sharp turn for the worse, according to internal government documents obtained by Global News. The province, once on track to surpass its reduction goals, is now projected to miss them—largely due to rising emissions from electricity generation, even as the IEA net-zero electricity report highlights rising demand nationwide.

In October 2024, the Ford government’s internal analysis indicated that Ontario was on track to reduce emissions by 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, effectively exceeding its target. But a subsequent update in January 2025 revealed a grim reversal. The new forecast showed an increase of about eight megatonnes (Mt) of emissions compared to the previous model, with most of the rise attributed to the province’s energy policies.

“This forecast is about 8 Mt higher than the October 2024 forecast, mainly due to higher electricity sector emissions that reflect the latest ENERGY/IESO energy planning and assumptions,” the internal document stated.

While the analysis did not specify which policy shifts triggered the change, experts point to Ontario’s growing reliance on natural gas. The use of gas-fired power plants has surged to fill temporary gaps created by nuclear refurbishment projects and other grid constraints, even as renewable energy’s role grows. In fact, natural gas generation in early 2025 reached its highest level since 2012.

The internal report cited “changing electricity generation,” nuclear power refurbishment, and “policy uncertainty” as major risks to achieving the province’s climate goals. But the situation may be even worse than the government’s updated forecast suggests.

On Wednesday, Ontario’s auditor general warned that the January projections were overly optimistic. The watchdog’s new report concluded the province could fall even further behind its 2030 emissions target, noting that reductions had likely been overestimated in several sectors, including transportation—such as electric vehicle sales—and waste management. “An even wider margin” of missed goals was now expected, the auditor said.

Environment Minister Todd McCarthy defended the government’s position, arguing that climate goals must be balanced against economic realities. “We cannot put families’ financial, household budgets at risk by going off in a direction that’s not achievable,” McCarthy said.

The minister declined to commit to new emissions targets beyond 2030—or even to confirm that the existing goals would be met—but insisted efforts were ongoing. “We are continuing to meet our commitment to at least try to meet our commitment for the 2030 target,” he told reporters. “But targets are not outcomes. We believe in achievable outcomes, not unrealistic objectives.”

Environmental advocates warn that Ontario’s reliance on fossil-fuel generation could lock the province into higher emissions for years, undermining national efforts to decarbonize Canada’s electricity grid. With cleaning up Canada’s electricity expected to play a central role in both industrial growth and climate action, the province’s backslide represents a significant setback for Canada’s overall emissions strategy.

Other provinces face similar challenges; for example, B.C. is projected to miss its 2050 targets by a wide margin.

As Ontario weighs its next steps, the tension between energy security, affordability, and environmental responsibility continues to define the province’s path toward a lower-carbon future and Canada’s 2050 net-zero target over the long term.

Related Articles

• Canada Electricity News

Ontario Global Adjustment Deferral offers COVID-19 electricity bill relief to industrial and commercial consumers not on the RPP, aligning GA to March levels for Class A and Class B manufacturers to improve cash flow.

Key Points

A temporary GA deferral easing electricity costs for Ontario industrial and commercial users not on the RPP.

✅ Sets Class B GA at $115/MWh; Class A gets equal percentage cut.

✅ Applies April-June 2020; automatic bill adjustments and credits.

✅ Deferred charges repaid over 12 months starting January 2021.

Manufacturers welcome the Government of Ontario's decision to defer a portion of Global Adjustment (GA) charges as part of support for industrial and commercial electricity consumers that do not participate in the Regulated Price Plan.

"Manufacturers are pleased the government listened to Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME) member recommendations and is taking action to reduce Ontario electricity bills immediately," said Dennis Darby, President & CEO of CME.

"The majority of manufacturers have identified cash flow as their top concern during the crisis, "added Darby. "The GA system would have caused a nearly $2 billion cost surge to Ontario manufacturers this year. This new initiative by the government is on top of the billions in support already provided to help manufacturers weather this unprecedented storm, while other provinces accelerate British Columbia's clean energy shift to drive long-term competitiveness. All these measures are a great start in helping businesses of all sizes stay afloat during the crisis and, keeping Ontarians employed."

"We call on the Ontario government to continue to consider the impact of electricity costs on the manufacturing sector, even after the COVID-19 crisis is resolved," stated Darby. "High prices are putting Ontario manufacturers at a significant competitive disadvantage and, discourages investments." A recent report from London Economics International (LEI) found that when compared to jurisdictions with similar manufacturing industries, Ontario's electricity prices can be up to 75% more expensive, underscoring the importance of planning for Toronto's growing electricity needs to maintain affordability.

To provide companies with temporary immediate relief on their electricity bills, the Ontario government is deferring a portion of Global Adjustment (GA) charges for industrial and commercial electricity consumers that do not participate in the Regulated Price Plan (RPP), starting from April 2020, as some regions saw reduced electricity demand from widespread remote work during the pandemic. The GA rate for smaller industrial and commercial consumers (i.e., Class B) has been set at $115 per megawatt-hour, which is roughly in line with the March 2020 value. Large industrial and commercial consumers (i.e., Class A) will receive the same percentage reduction in GA charges as Class B consumers.

The Ontario government intends to keep this relief in place through the end of June 2020, alongside investments like smart grid technology in Sault Ste. Marie to support reliability, subject to necessary extensions and approvals to implement this initiative.

Industrial and commercial electricity consumers will automatically see this relief reflected on their bills. Consumers who have already received their April bill should see an adjustment on a future bill.

Related initiatives include developing cyber standards for electricity sector IoT devices to strengthen system security.

The government intends to bring forward subsequent amendments that would, if approved, recover the deferred GA charges (excluding interest) from industrial and commercial electricity consumers, as Toronto prepares for a surge in electricity demand amid continued growth, over a 12-month period beginning in January 2021.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

SM-1A Nuclear Plant Decommissioning details the US Army Corps of Engineers' removal of the Fort Greely reactor, Cold War facility dismantling, environmental monitoring, remote-site power history, and timeline to 2026 under a deactivated nuclear program.

Key Points

Army Corps plan to dismantle Fort Greely's SM-1A reactor and complete decommissioning of remaining systems by 2026.

✅ Built for remote Arctic radar support during the Cold War

✅ High costs beat diesel; program later deemed impractical

✅ Reactor parts removed; residuals monitored; removal by 2026

The US Army Corps of Engineers has begun decommissioning Alaska’s only nuclear power plant, SM-1A, which is located at Fort Greely, even as new US reactors continue to take shape nationwide. The $17m plant closed in 1972 after ten years of sporadic operation. It was out of commission from 1967 to 1969 for extensive repairs. Much of has already been dismantled and sent for disposal, and the rest, which is encased in concrete, is now to be removed.

The plant was built as part of an experimental programme to determine whether nuclear facilities, akin to next-generation nuclear concepts, could be built and operated at remote sites more cheaply than diesel-fuelled plants.

"The main approach was to reduce significant fuel-transportation costs by having a nuclear reactor that could operate for long terms, a concept echoed in the NuScale SMR safety evaluation process, with just one nuclear core," Brian Hearty said. Hearty manages the Army Corps of Engineers’ Deactivated Nuclear Power Plant Program.

#google#

He said the Army built SM-1A in 1962 hoping to provide power reliably at remote Arctic radar sites, where in similarly isolated regions today new US coal plants may still be considered, intended to detect incoming missiles from the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. He added that the programme worked but not as well as Pentagon officials had hoped. While SM-1A could be built and operated in a cold and remote location, its upfront costs were much higher than anticipated, and it costs more to maintain than a diesel power plant. Moreover, the programme became irrelevant because of advances in Soviet rocket science and the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Hearty said the reactor was partially dismantled soon after it was shut down. “All of the fuel in the reactor core was removed and shipped back to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) for them to either reprocess or dispose of,” he noted. “The highly activated control and absorber rods were also removed and shipped back to the AEC.”

The SM-1A plant produced 1.8MWe and 20MWt, including steam, which was used to heat the post. Because that part of the system was still needed, Army officials removed most of the nuclear-power system and linked the heat and steam components to a diesel-fired boiler. However, several parts of the nuclear system remained, including the reactor pressure vessel and reactor coolant pumps. “Those were either kept in place, or they were cut off and laid down in the tall vapour-containment building there,” Hearty said. “And then they were grouted and concreted in place.” The Corps of Engineers wants to remove all that remains of the plant, but it is as yet unclear whether that will be feasible.

Meanwhile, monitoring for radioactivity around the facility shows that it remains at acceptable levels. “It would be safe to say there’s no threat to human health in the environment,” said Brenda Barber, project manager for the decommissioning. Work is still in its early stages and is due to be completed in 2026 at the earliest. Barber said the Corps awarded the $4.6m contract in December to a Virginia-based firm to develop a long-range plan for the project, similar in scope to large reactor refurbishment efforts elsewhere. Among other things, this will help officials determine how much of the SM-1A will remain after it’s decommissioned. “There will still be buildings there,” she said. “There will still be components of some of the old structure there that may likely remain.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Natrium small modular reactor pairs a sodium-cooled fast reactor with molten salt storage to deliver load-following, dispatchable nuclear power, enhancing grid flexibility and peaking capacity as TerraPower and GE Hitachi pursue factory-built, affordable deployment.

Key Points

A TerraPower-GE Hitachi SMR joining a sodium-cooled reactor with molten salt storage for flexible, dispatchable power.

✅ 345 MW base; 500 MW for 5.5 hours via thermal storage

✅ Sodium-cooled coolant and molten salt storage enable load-following

✅ Backed by major utilities; factory-built modules aim lower costs

Nuclear power is the Immovable Object of generation sources. It can take days just to bring a nuclear plant completely online, rendering it useless as a tool to manage the fluctuations in the supply and demand on a modern energy grid.  

Now a firm launched by Bill Gates in 2006, TerraPower, in partnership with GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, believes it has found a way to make the infamously unwieldy energy source a great deal nimbler, drawing on next-gen nuclear ideas — and for an affordable price. 

The new design, announced by TerraPower on August 27th, is a combination of a "sodium-cooled fast reactor" — a type of small reactor in which liquid sodium is used as a coolant — and an energy storage system. While the reactor could pump out 345 megawatts of electrical power indefinitely, the attached storage system would retain heat in the form of molten salt and could discharge the heat when needed, increasing the plant’s overall power output to 500 megawatts for more than 5.5 hours. 

“This allows for a nuclear design that follows daily electric load changes and helps customers capitalize on peaking opportunities driven by renewable energy fluctuations,” TerraPower said. 

Dubbed Natrium after the Latin name for sodium ('natrium'), the new design will be available in the late 2020s, said Chris Levesque, TerraPower's president and CEO.

TerraPower said it has the support of a handful of top U.S. utilities, including Berkshire Hathaway Energy subsidiary Pacificorp, Energy Northwest, and Duke Energy. 

The reactor's molten salt storage add-on would essentially reprise the role currently played by coal- or gas-fired power stations or grid-scale batteries: each is a dispatchable form of power generation that can quickly ratchet up or down in response to changes in grid demand or supply. As the power demands of modern grids become ever more variable with additions of wind and solar power — which only provide energy when the wind is blowing or the sun shining — low-carbon sources of dispatchable power are needed more and more, and Europe is losing nuclear power at a difficult moment for energy security. California’s rolling blackouts are one example of what can happen when not enough power is available to be dispatched to meet peak demand. 

The use of molten salt, which retains heat at extremely high temperatures, as a storage technology is not new. Concentrated solar power plants also collect energy in the form of molten salt, although such plants have largely been abandoned in the U.S. The technology could enjoy new life alongside nuclear plants: TerraPower and GE Hitachi Nuclear are only two of several private firms working to develop reactor designs that incorporate molten salt storage units, including U.K.- and Canada-based developer Moltex Energy.

The Gates-backed venture and its partner touted the "significant cost savings" that would be achieved by building major portions of their Natrium plants through not a custom but an industrial process — a defining feature of the newest generation of advanced reactors is that their parts can be made in factories and assembled on-site — although more details on cost weren't available. Reuters reported earlier that each plant would cost around $1 billion.

NuScale Power

A day after TerraPower and GE Hitachi's unveiled their new design, another nuclear firm — Portland, Oregon-based NuScale Power — announced that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had completed its final safety evaluation of NuScale’s new small modular reactor design.

It was the first small modular reactor design ever to receive design approval from the NRC, NuScale said. 

The approval means customers can now pursue plans to develop its reactor design confident that the NRC has signed off on its safety aspects. NuScale said it has signed agreements with interested parties in the U.S., Canada, Romania, the Czech Republic, and Jordan, and is in the process of negotiating more. 

NuScale previously said that construction on one of its plants could begin in Utah in 2023, with the aim of completing the first Power Module in 2026 and the remaining 11 modules in 2027.

NuScale
An artist’s rendering of NuScale Power’s small modular nuclear reactor plant. NUSCALE POWER
NuScale’s reactor is smaller than TerraPower’s. Entirely factory-built, each of its Power Modules would generate 60 megawatts of power. The design, typical of advanced reactors, uses pressurized water reactor technology, with one power plant able to house up to 12 individual Power Modules. 

In a sign of the huge amounts of time and resources it takes to get new nuclear technology to the market’s doorstep, NuScale said it first completed its Design Certification Application in December 2016. NRC officials then spent as many as 115,000 hours reviewing it, NuScale said, in what was only the first of several phases in the review process. 

In January 2019, President Donald Trump signed into law the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA), designed to speed the licensing process for advanced nuclear reactors, and the DOE under Secretary Rick Perry moved to advance nuclear development through parallel initiatives. The law had widespread bipartisan support, underscoring Democrats' recent tentative embrace of nuclear power.

An industry eager to turn the page

After a boom in the construction of massive nuclear power plants in the 1960s and 70s, the world's aging fleet of nuclear plants suffers from rising costs and flagging public support. Nuclear advocates have for years heralded so-called small modular reactors or SMRs as the cheaper and more agile successors to the first generation of plants, and policy moves such as the UK's green industrial revolution lay out pathways for successive waves of reactors. But so far a breakthrough on cost has proved elusive, and delays in development timelines have been abundant. 

Edwin Lyman, the director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, suggested on Twitter that the nuclear designs used by TerraPower and GE Hitachi had fallen short of a major innovation. “Oh brother. The last thing the world needs is a fleet of sodium-cooled fast reactors,” he wrote.  

Still, climate scientists view nuclear energy as a crucial source of zero-carbon energy, with analyses arguing that net-zero emissions may be impossible without nuclear in many scenarios, if the world stands a chance at limiting global temperature increases to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Nearly all mainstream projections of the world’s path to keeping the temperature increase below those levels feature nuclear energy in a prominent role, including those by the United Nations and the International Energy Agency (IEA). 

According to the IEA: “Achieving the clean energy transition with less nuclear power is possible but would require an extraordinary effort.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ukraine Energy Grid Attacks intensify as missile strikes and drone raids hit power plants, substations, and transmission lines, causing blackouts, disrupted logistics, and humanitarian strain during winter, despite repairs, air defense, and allied aid.

Key Points

Missile and drone strikes on Ukraine's power grid to force blackouts, strain civilians, and disrupt military logistics.

✅ Targets: power plants, substations, transmission lines

✅ Impacts: blackouts, heating loss, hospital strain

✅ Goals: erode morale, disrupt logistics, force aid burdens

Russia’s continued strikes on Ukraine have taken a severe toll on the country’s critical infrastructure, particularly its energy grid, as Ukraine continues to keep the lights on despite sustained bombardment. In recent months, Western Ukraine has increasingly become a target of missile and drone attacks, leading to widespread power outages and compounding the challenges faced by the civilian population. These strikes aim to cripple Ukraine's resilience during a harsh winter season and disrupt its wartime operations.

Targeting Energy Infrastructure

Russian missile and drone assaults on Ukraine’s energy grid are part of a broader strategy to weaken the country’s morale and capacity to sustain the war effort. The attacks have primarily focused on power plants, transmission lines, and substations. Western Ukraine, previously considered a relative safe haven due to its distance from front-line combat zones, is now experiencing the brunt of this campaign.

The consequences of these strikes are severe. Rolling blackouts and unplanned outages have disrupted daily life for millions of Ukrainians, though authorities say there are electricity reserves that could stabilize supply if no new strikes occur, leaving homes without heating during freezing temperatures, hospitals operating on emergency power, and businesses struggling to maintain operations. The infrastructure damage has also affected water supplies and public transportation, further straining civilian life.

Aimed at Civilian and Military Impact

Russia’s targeting of Ukraine’s power grid has dual purposes. On one hand, it aims to undermine civilian morale by creating hardships during the cold winter months, even as Ukraine works to keep the lights on this winter through contingency measures. On the other, it seeks to hinder Ukraine’s military logistics and operations, which heavily rely on a stable energy supply for transportation, communications, and manufacturing of military equipment.

These attacks coincide with a broader strategy of attritional warfare, where Moscow hopes to exhaust Ukraine’s resources and diminish its ability to continue its counteroffensive operations. By disrupting critical infrastructure, Russia increases pressure on Ukraine's allies to step up humanitarian and military aid, stretching their capacities.

Humanitarian Consequences

The impact of these power cuts on the civilian population is profound. Millions of Ukrainians are enduring freezing temperatures without consistent access to electricity or heating. Vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, children, and those with disabilities, face heightened risks of hypothermia and other health issues.

Hospitals and healthcare facilities are under immense strain, relying on backup generators that cannot sustain prolonged use. In rural areas, where infrastructure is already weaker, the effects are even more pronounced, leaving many communities isolated and unable to access essential services.

Humanitarian organizations have ramped up efforts to provide aid, including distributing generators, warm clothing, and food supplies, while many households pursue new energy solutions to weather blackouts. However, the scale of the crisis often outpaces the resources available, leaving many Ukrainians to rely on their resilience and community networks.

Ukraine's Response

Despite the challenges, Ukraine has demonstrated remarkable resilience in the face of these attacks. The government and utility companies are working around the clock to repair damaged infrastructure and restore power to affected areas. Mobile repair teams and international assistance have played crucial roles in mitigating the impact of these strikes.

Ukraine’s Western allies have also stepped in to provide support. The European Union, the United States, and other countries have supplied Ukraine with energy equipment, financial aid, and technical expertise to help rebuild its energy grid, though recent decisions like the U.S. ending support for grid restoration complicate planning and procurement. Additionally, advanced air defense systems provided by Western nations have helped intercept some of the incoming missiles and drones, though not all attacks can be thwarted.

Russia’s Escalation Strategy

Russia’s focus on Western Ukraine reflects a shift in its strategy. Previously, attacks were concentrated on front-line areas and major urban centers in the east and south. However, by targeting the western regions, Moscow seeks to disrupt the relatively stable zones where displaced Ukrainians and critical supply chains are located.

Western Ukraine is also a hub for receiving and distributing international aid and military supplies. Striking this region not only undermines Ukraine’s internal stability but also sends a message to its allies about Russia’s willingness to escalate the conflict further.

Broader Implications

The attacks on Ukraine’s energy grid have broader geopolitical implications. By targeting infrastructure, Russia intensifies the pressure on Ukraine’s allies to continue providing support, even as Kyiv has at times helped Spain amid blackouts when capacity allowed, testing their unity and resolve. The destruction also poses long-term challenges for Ukraine’s post-war recovery, as rebuilding a modern and resilient energy system will require significant investments and time.

Moreover, these attacks highlight the vulnerability of civilian infrastructure in modern warfare, echoing that electricity is civilization amid winter conditions. The deliberate targeting of non-combatant assets underscores the need for international efforts to strengthen the protection of critical infrastructure and address the humanitarian consequences of such tactics.

The Russian attacks on Western Ukraine's power grid are a stark reminder of the devastating human and economic costs of the ongoing conflict. While Ukraine continues to demonstrate resilience and adaptability, the scale of destruction underscores the need for sustained international support. As the war drags on, the focus must remain on mitigating civilian suffering, rebuilding critical infrastructure, and pursuing a resolution that ends the violence and stabilizes the region.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Texas EV Registration Fee adds a $200 annual charge under Senate Bill 505, offsetting lost gasoline tax revenue to the State Highway Fund, impacting electric vehicle owners at registration and renewals across Texas.

Key Points

A $200 yearly charge on electric vehicles to replace lost gasoline tax revenue and support Texas Highway Fund road work.

✅ $200 due at registration or renewal; $400 upfront on new EVs.

✅ Enacted by Senate Bill 505 to offset lost gasoline tax revenue.

✅ Advocates propose mileage-based fees; limited $2,500 rebates exist.

Plano resident Tony Federico bought his Tesla five years ago in part because he hated spending lots of money on gas, and Supercharger billing changes have also influenced charging expenses. But that financial calculus will change slightly on Sept. 1, when Texas will start charging electric vehicle drivers an additional fee of $200 each year.

“It just seems like it’s arbitrary, with no real logic behind it,” said Federico, 51, who works in information technology. “But I’m going to have to pay it.”

Earlier this year, state lawmakers passed Senate Bill 505, which requires electric vehicle owners to pay the fee when they register a vehicle or renew their registration, even as fights for control over charging continue among utilities, automakers and retailers. It’s being imposed because lawmakers said EV drivers weren’t paying their fair share into a fund that helps cover road construction and repairs across Texas.

The cost will be especially high for those who purchase a new electric vehicle and have to pay two years of registration, or $400, up front.

Texas agencies estimated in a 2020 report that the state lost an average of $200 per year in federal and state gasoline tax dollars when an electric vehicle replaced a gas-fueled one. The agencies called the fee “the most straightforward” remedy.

Gasoline taxes go to the State Highway Fund, which the Texas Department of Transportation calls its “primary funding source.” Electric vehicle drivers don’t pay those taxes, though, because they don’t use gasoline.

Still, EV drivers do use the roads. And while electric vehicles make up a tiny portion of cars in Texas for now, that fraction is expected to increase, raising concerns about state power grids in the years ahead.

Many environmental and consumer advocates agreed with lawmakers that EV drivers should pay into the highway fund but argued over how much, and debates over fairer vehicle taxes are surfacing abroad as well.

Some thought the state should set the fee lower to cover only the lost state tax dollars, rather than both the state and federal money, because federal officials may devise their own scheme. Others argued the state should charge nothing because EVs help reduce greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change and can offer budget benefits for many owners.

“We urgently need to get more electric vehicles on the road,” said Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas. “Any increased fee could create an additional barrier for Texans, and particularly more moderate- to low-income Texans, to make that transition.”

Tom “Smitty” Smith, the executive director of the Texas Electric Transportation Resources Alliance, advocated for a fee based on how many miles a person drove their electric car, which would better mirror how the gas taxes are assessed.

Texas has a limited incentive that could offset the cost: It offers rebates of up to $2,500 for up to 2,000 new hydrogen fuel cell, electric or hybrid vehicles every two years. Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen’s Texas office director, recommended that the state expand the rebates, noting that state-level EV benefits can be significant.

In the Houston area, dealer Steven Wolf isn’t worried about the fee deterring potential customers from buying the electric Ford F-150 Lightning and Mustang Mach-E vehicles he sells. Electric cars are already more expensive than comparable gasoline-fueled cars, and charging networks compete for drivers, he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News