According to the Public Establishment for Electricity Generation and Transmission PEEGT, Syria has a nominal installed generation capacity of 7,188 megawatts MW, which neither covers the peak demand of 6,500 MW nor meets the local demand of 22 million inhabitants.
Syria has a real generation deficit of about 1,000 MW, which is expected to increase to 1,800 MW by 2012, as stated in the Al-Thawra newspaper.
Generated electricity in Syria is 20 lower than had been expected, and blackouts are frequent because of a dependency on aging power plants, coupled with a rapid growth in local demand, which has jumped from a 7 to a 10 annual rate.
PEEGT planned to cope with the growth of local demand by relying on importing electricity through grid interconnection with neighboring countries, and by using the private sector to invest in infrastructure projects through public private partnership projects and further the use of independent power producers in electricity generation.
The Syrian grid was connected to the Egyptian grid in 2003 when Egypt offered to add about 100 MW. Syria has asked the Turkish Electricity Trading and Contracting Company TETAS to sell it an extra 250 megawatts of electricity, in a bid to raise its total electricity purchases from Turkey to 500 MW. The Syrian grid has been connected to the Turkish grid since the 1970s.
Ahmad Qussay Kayyali, the Minister of Electricity, told the Tishreen newspaper that Syria needs at least one new 600-MW power station, at a minimum cost of $650 million every year for the next six years, to reach the target capacity of 13,000 MW by 2015. He added that the Ministry of Electricity intends to diversify its sources of power generation in the country and to promote private-sector investment in infrastructure through the development of a gas-fired, 180- to 250-MW IPP at the Al-Nasserieh power complex.
Syria floated the tender internationally in August 2010 to invite all interested developers to offer their pre-qualification documents before the end of September this year, in order to fulfill the pre-qualification bid conditions. PEEGT will shortlist companies, and winners from the first round will head to the second round, the winner of which will construct the proposed power plant, which has estimated cost of about $300 million.
Rising Electricity Prices are driven by inflation, climate change, and the clean energy transition, affecting energy bills, grid resilience, and supply. Renewables, storage, and infrastructure upgrades shape costs, volatility, and long-term sustainability.
Key Points
Rising electricity prices stem from inflation, climate risk, and costs of integrating clean energy and storage into modern grids.
✅ Inflation raises fuel, materials, and labor costs for utilities
✅ Extreme weather damages infrastructure and strains peak demand
✅ Clean energy rollout needs storage, backup, and grid upgrades
In recent months, consumers have been grappling with a concerning trend: rising electricity prices across the country. This increase is not merely a fluctuation but a complex issue shaped by a confluence of factors including inflation, climate change, and the transition to clean energy. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for navigating the current energy landscape and preparing for its future.
Inflation and Its Impact on Energy Costs
Inflation, the economic phenomenon of rising prices across various sectors, has significantly impacted the cost of living, including electricity and natural gas prices for households. As the price of goods and services increases, so too does the cost of producing and delivering electricity. Energy production relies heavily on raw materials, such as metals and fuels, whose prices have surged in recent years. For instance, the costs associated with mining, transporting, and refining these materials have risen, thereby increasing the operational expenses for power plants.
Moreover, inflation affects labor costs, as wages often need to keep pace with the rising cost of living. As utility companies face higher expenses for both materials and labor, these costs are inevitably passed on to consumers in the form of higher electricity bills.
Climate Change and Energy Supply Disruptions
Climate change also plays a significant role in driving up electricity prices. Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, heatwaves, and floods, have become more frequent and severe due to climate change. These events disrupt energy production and distribution by damaging infrastructure, impeding transportation, and affecting the availability of resources.
For example, hurricanes can knock out power plants and damage transmission lines, leading to shortages and higher costs. During periods of extreme summer heat across many regions, heatwaves can strain the power grid as increased demand for air conditioning pushes the system to its limits. Such disruptions not only lead to higher immediate costs but also necessitate costly repairs and infrastructure upgrades.
Additionally, the increasing frequency of natural disasters forces utilities to invest in more resilient infrastructure, as many utilities spend more on delivery to harden grids and reduce outages, which adds to overall costs. These investments, while necessary for long-term reliability, contribute to short-term price increases for consumers.
The Transition to Clean Energy
The shift towards clean energy is another pivotal factor influencing electricity prices. While renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and hydro power are crucial for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change, their integration into the existing grid presents challenges.
Renewable energy infrastructure requires substantial initial investment. The construction of wind farms, solar panels, and the associated grid improvements involve significant capital expenditure. These upfront costs are often reflected in electricity prices. Moreover, renewable energy sources can be intermittent, meaning they do not always produce electricity at times of high demand. This intermittency necessitates the development of energy storage solutions and backup systems, which further adds to the costs.
Utilities are also transitioning from fossil fuel-based energy production to cleaner alternatives, a process that involves both technological and operational shifts and intersects with the broader energy crisis impacts on electricity, gas, and EVs nationwide. These changes can temporarily increase costs as utilities phase out old systems and implement new ones. While the long-term benefits of cleaner energy include environmental sustainability and potentially lower operating costs, the transition period can be financially burdensome for consumers.
The Path Forward
Addressing rising electricity prices requires a multifaceted approach. Policymakers must balance the need for immediate relief, as California regulators face calls for action amid soaring bills, with the long-term goals of sustainability and resilience. Investments in energy efficiency can help reduce overall demand and ease pressure on the grid. Expanding and modernizing energy infrastructure to accommodate renewable sources can also mitigate price volatility.
Additionally, efforts to mitigate climate change through improved resilience and adaptive measures can reduce the frequency and impact of extreme weather events, thereby stabilizing energy costs.
Consumer education is vital in this process. Understanding the factors driving electricity prices can empower individuals to make informed decisions about energy consumption and conservation. Furthermore, exploring energy-efficient appliances and practices can help manage costs in the face of rising prices.
In summary, the rising cost of electricity is a multifaceted issue influenced by inflation, climate change, and the transition to clean energy, and recent developments show Germany's rising energy costs in the coming year. While these factors pose significant challenges, they also offer opportunities for innovation and improvement in how we produce, distribute, and consume energy. By addressing these issues with a balanced approach, it is possible to navigate the complexities of rising electricity prices while working towards a more sustainable and resilient energy future.
ITER Nuclear Fusion advances tokamak magnetic confinement, heating deuterium-tritium plasma with superconducting magnets, targeting net energy gain, tritium breeding, and steam-turbine power, while complementing laser inertial confinement milestones for grid-scale electricity and 2025 startup goals.
Key Points
ITER Nuclear Fusion is a tokamak project confining D-T plasma with magnets to achieve net energy gain and clean power.
✅ Tokamak magnetic confinement with high-temp superconducting coils
✅ Deuterium-tritium fuel cycle with on-site tritium breeding
✅ Targets net energy gain and grid-scale, low-carbon electricity
It sounds like the stuff of dreams: a virtually limitless source of energy that doesn’t produce greenhouse gases or radioactive waste. That’s the promise of nuclear fusion, often described as the holy grail of clean energy by proponents, which for decades has been nothing more than a fantasy due to insurmountable technical challenges. But things are heating up in what has turned into a race to create what amounts to an artificial sun here on Earth, one that can provide power for our kettles, cars and light bulbs.
Today’s nuclear power plants create electricity through nuclear fission, in which atoms are split, with next-gen nuclear power exploring smaller, cheaper, safer designs that remain distinct from fusion. Nuclear fusion however, involves combining atomic nuclei to release energy. It’s the same reaction that’s taking place at the Sun’s core. But overcoming the natural repulsion between atomic nuclei and maintaining the right conditions for fusion to occur isn’t straightforward. And doing so in a way that produces more energy than the reaction consumes has been beyond the grasp of the finest minds in physics for decades.
But perhaps not for much longer. Some major technical challenges have been overcome in the past few years and governments around the world have been pouring money into fusion power research as part of a broader green industrial revolution under way in several regions. There are also over 20 private ventures in the UK, US, Europe, China and Australia vying to be the first to make fusion energy production a reality.
“People are saying, ‘If it really is the ultimate solution, let’s find out whether it works or not,’” says Dr Tim Luce, head of science and operation at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), being built in southeast France. ITER is the biggest throw of the fusion dice yet.
Its $22bn (£15.9bn) build cost is being met by the governments of two-thirds of the world’s population, including the EU, the US, China and Russia, at a time when Europe is losing nuclear power and needs energy, and when it’s fired up in 2025 it’ll be the world’s largest fusion reactor. If it works, ITER will transform fusion power from being the stuff of dreams into a viable energy source.
Constructing a nuclear fusion reactor ITER will be a tokamak reactor – thought to be the best hope for fusion power. Inside a tokamak, a gas, often a hydrogen isotope called deuterium, is subjected to intense heat and pressure, forcing electrons out of the atoms. This creates a plasma – a superheated, ionised gas – that has to be contained by intense magnetic fields.
The containment is vital, as no material on Earth could withstand the intense heat (100,000,000°C and above) that the plasma has to reach so that fusion can begin. It’s close to 10 times the heat at the Sun’s core, and temperatures like that are needed in a tokamak because the gravitational pressure within the Sun can’t be recreated.
When atomic nuclei do start to fuse, vast amounts of energy are released. While the experimental reactors currently in operation release that energy as heat, in a fusion reactor power plant, the heat would be used to produce steam that would drive turbines to generate electricity, even as some envision nuclear beyond electricity for industrial heat and fuels.
Tokamaks aren’t the only fusion reactors being tried. Another type of reactor uses lasers to heat and compress a hydrogen fuel to initiate fusion. In August 2021, one such device at the National Ignition Facility, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, generated 1.35 megajoules of energy. This record-breaking figure brings fusion power a step closer to net energy gain, but most hopes are still pinned on tokamak reactors rather than lasers.
In June 2021, China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor maintained a plasma for 101 seconds at 120,000,000°C. Before that, the record was 20 seconds. Ultimately, a fusion reactor would need to sustain the plasma indefinitely – or at least for eight-hour ‘pulses’ during periods of peak electricity demand.
A real game-changer for tokamaks has been the magnets used to produce the magnetic field. “We know how to make magnets that generate a very high magnetic field from copper or other kinds of metal, but you would pay a fortune for the electricity. It wouldn’t be a net energy gain from the plant,” says Luce.
One route for nuclear fusion is to use atoms of deuterium and tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen. They fuse under incredible heat and pressure, and the resulting products release energy as heat
The solution is to use high-temperature, superconducting magnets made from superconducting wire, or ‘tape’, that has no electrical resistance. These magnets can create intense magnetic fields and don’t lose energy as heat.
“High temperature superconductivity has been known about for 35 years. But the manufacturing capability to make tape in the lengths that would be required to make a reasonable fusion coil has just recently been developed,” says Luce. One of ITER’s magnets, the central solenoid, will produce a field of 13 tesla – 280,000 times Earth’s magnetic field.
The inner walls of ITER’s vacuum vessel, where the fusion will occur, will be lined with beryllium, a metal that won’t contaminate the plasma much if they touch. At the bottom is the divertor that will keep the temperature inside the reactor under control.
“The heat load on the divertor can be as large as in a rocket nozzle,” says Luce. “Rocket nozzles work because you can get into orbit within minutes and in space it’s really cold.” In a fusion reactor, a divertor would need to withstand this heat indefinitely and at ITER they’ll be testing one made out of tungsten.
Meanwhile, in the US, the National Spherical Torus Experiment – Upgrade (NSTX-U) fusion reactor will be fired up in the autumn of 2022, while efforts in advanced fission such as a mini-reactor design are also progressing. One of its priorities will be to see whether lining the reactor with lithium helps to keep the plasma stable.
Choosing a fuel Instead of just using deuterium as the fusion fuel, ITER will use deuterium mixed with tritium, another hydrogen isotope. The deuterium-tritium blend offers the best chance of getting significantly more power out than is put in. Proponents of fusion power say one reason the technology is safe is that the fuel needs to be constantly fed into the reactor to keep fusion happening, making a runaway reaction impossible.
Deuterium can be extracted from seawater, so there’s a virtually limitless supply of it. But only 20kg of tritium are thought to exist worldwide, so fusion power plants will have to produce it (ITER will develop technology to ‘breed’ tritium). While some radioactive waste will be produced in a fusion plant, it’ll have a lifetime of around 100 years, rather than the thousands of years from fission.
At the time of writing in September, researchers at the Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor in Oxfordshire were due to start their deuterium-tritium fusion reactions. “JET will help ITER prepare a choice of machine parameters to optimise the fusion power,” says Dr Joelle Mailloux, one of the scientific programme leaders at JET. These parameters will include finding the best combination of deuterium and tritium, and establishing how the current is increased in the magnets before fusion starts.
The groundwork laid down at JET should accelerate ITER’s efforts to accomplish net energy gain. ITER will produce ‘first plasma’ in December 2025 and be cranked up to full power over the following decade. Its plasma temperature will reach 150,000,000°C and its target is to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power for every 50 megawatts of input heating power.
“If ITER is successful, it’ll eliminate most, if not all, doubts about the science and liberate money for technology development,” says Luce. That technology development will be demonstration fusion power plants that actually produce electricity, where advanced reactors can build on decades of expertise. “ITER is opening the door and saying, yeah, this works – the science is there.”
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Ontario Renewable Energy Cancellations highlight Doug Ford's move to scrap wind turbine contracts, citing electricity rate relief and taxpayer savings, while critics, the NDP, and industry warn of job losses, termination fees, and auditor scrutiny.
Key Points
Ontario's termination of renewable contracts, defended as cost and rate relief, faces disputes over savings and jobs.
✅ PCs cite electricity rate relief and taxpayer savings.
✅ Critics warn of job losses and termination fees.
✅ Auditor inquiry sought into contract cancellation costs.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford, whose new stance on wind power has drawn attention, said Thursday he is “proud” of his decision to tear up hundreds of renewable energy deals, a move that his government acknowledges could cost taxpayers more than $230 million.
Ford dismissed criticism that his Progressive Conservatives are wasting public money, telling a news conference that the cancellation of 750 contracts signed by the previous Liberal government will save cash, even as Ontario moves to reintroduce renewable energy projects in the coming years.
“I’m so proud of that,” Ford said of his decision. “I’m proud that we actually saved the taxpayers $790 million when we cancelled those terrible, terrible, terrible wind turbines that really for the last 15 years have destroyed our energy file.”
Later Thursday, Ford went further in defending the cancelled contracts, saying “if we had the chance to get rid of all the wind mills we would,” though a court ruling near Cornwall challenged such cancellations.
The NDP first reported the cost of the cancellations Tuesday, saying the $231 million figure was listed as “other transactions”, buried in government documents detailing spending in the 2018-2019 fiscal year.
The Progressive Conservatives have said the final cost of the cancellations, which include the decommissioning of a wind farm already under construction in Prince Edward County, Ont., has yet to be established, amid warnings about wind project cancellation costs from developers.
The government has said it tore up the deals because the province didn’t need the power and it was driving up electricity rates, and the decision will save millions over the life of the contracts. Industry officials have disputed those savings, saying the cancellations will just mean job losses for small business, and ignore wind power’s growing competitiveness in electricity markets.
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath has asked Ontario’s auditor general to investigate the contracts and their termination fees, amid debates over Ontario’s electricity future among leadership contenders. She called Ford’s remarks on Thursday “ridiculous.”
“Every jurisdiction around the world is trying to figure out how to bring more renewables onto their electricity grids,” she said. “This government is taking us backwards and costing us at the very least $231 million in tearing these energy contracts.”
At the federal level, a recent green electricity contract with an Edmonton company underscores that shift.
CPUC Exit Fee Increase for CCAs adjusts the PCIA, affecting utilities, San Diego ratepayers, renewable energy procurement, customer equity, and cost allocation, while providing regulatory certainty for Community Choice Aggregation programs and clean energy goals.
Key Points
A CPUC-approved change raising PCIA exit fees paid by CCAs to utilities, balancing cost shifts and customer equity.
✅ PCIA rises from about 2.5c to roughly 4.25c per kWh in San Diego
✅ Aims to reduce cost shifts and protect non-CCA customers
✅ Offers regulatory certainty for CCA launches and clean energy goals
The California Public Utilities Commission approved an increase on the exit fees charged to customers who take part in Community Choice Aggregation -- government-run alternatives to traditional utilities like San Diego Gas & Electric.
After reviewing two competing exit fee proposals, all five commissioners voted Thursday in favor of an adjustment that many CCA advocates predicted could hamper the growth of the community choice movement.
But minutes after the vote was announced, one of the leading voices in favor of the city San Diego establishing its own CCA said the decision was good news because it provides some regulatory certainty.
"For us in San Diego, it's a green light to move forward with community choice," said Nicole Capretz, executive director of the Climate Action Campaign. "For us, it's let's go, let's launch and let's give families a choice. We no longer have to wait."
Under the CCA model, utilities still maintain transmission and distribution lines (poles and wires, etc.) and handle customer billing. But officials in a given local government entity make the final decisions about what kind of power sources are purchased.
Once a CCA is formed, its customers must pay an exit fee -- called a Power Charge Indifference Adjustment -- to the legacy utility serving that particular region. The fee is included in customers' monthly bills.
The fee is required to offset the costs of the investments utilities made over the years for things like natural gas power plants, renewable energy facilities and other infrastructure.
Utilities argue if the exit fee is set too low, it does not fairly compensate them for their investments; if it's too high, CCAs complain it reduces the financial incentive for their potential customers.
The Public Utilities Commission chose to adopt a proposal that some said was more favorable to utilities, leading to complaints from CCA boosters.
"We see this will really throw sand in the gears in our ability to do things that can move us toward (climate change) goals," Jim Parks, staff member of Valley Clean Energy, a CCA based in Davis, said before the vote.
Commissioner Carla Peterman, who authored the proposal that passed, said she supports CCAs but stressed the commission has a "legal obligation" to make sure increased costs are not shouldered by "customers who do not, or cannot, join a CCA. Today's proposal ensures a more level playing field between customers."
As for what the vote means for the exit fee in San Diego, Peterman's office earlier in the week estimated the charge would rise from 2.5 cents a kilowatt-hour to about 4.25 cents.
The Clear the Air Coaltion, a San Diego County group critical of CCAs, said the newly established exit fee -- which goes into effect starting next year -- is "a step in the direction."
But the group, which includes the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, the San Diego County Taxpayers Association and lobbyists for Sempra Energy (the parent company of SDG&E), repeated concerns it has brought up before.
"If the city of San Diego decides to get into the energy business this decision means ratepayers in National City, Chula Vista, Carlsbad, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, El Cajon and all other neighboring communities would see higher energy bills, and San Diego taxpayers would be faced with mounting debt," coalition spokesman Tony Manolatos said in an email.
CCA supporters say community choice is critical in ensuring San Diego meets the pledge made by Mayor Kevin Faulconer to adopt the city's Climate Action Plan, mandating 100 percent of the city's electricity needs must come from renewable sources by 2035.
Now attention turns to Faulconer, who promised to make a decision on bringing a CCA proposal to the San Diego City Council only after the utilities commission made its decision.
A Faulconer spokesman said Thursday afternoon that the vote "provides the clarity we've been waiting for to move forward" but did not offer a specific time table.
"We're on schedule to reach Mayor Faulconer's goal of choosing a pathway that achieves our renewable energy goals while also protecting ratepayers, and the mayor looks forward to making his recommendation in the next few weeks," said Craig Gustafson, a Faulconer spokesman, in an email.
A feasibility study released last year predicted a CCA in San Diego has the potential to deliver cheaper rates over time than SDG&E's current service, while providing as much as 50 percent renewable energy by 2023 and 80 percent by 2027.
"The city has already figured out we are still capable of launching a program, having competitive, affordable rates and finally offering families a choice as to who their energy provider is," said Capretz, who helped draft an initial blueprint of the climate plan as a city staffer.
SDG&E has come to the city with a counterproposal that offers 100 percent renewables by 2035.
Thus far, the utility has produced a rough outline for a "tariff" program that would charge ratepayers the cost of delivering more clean sources of energy over time.
Some council members have expressed frustration more specifics have not been sketched out.
SDG&E officials said they will take the new exit fee into account as they go forward with their counterproposal to the city council.
Speaking in general about the utility commission's decision, SDG&E spokeswoman Helen Gao called it "a victory for our customers, as it minimizes the cost shifts that they have been burdened with under the existing fee formula.
"As commissioners noted in rendering their decision, reforming the (exit fee) addresses a customer-to-customer equity issue and has nothing to do with increasing profits for investor-owned utilities," Gao said in an email.
Ontario Electricity Transition faces surging demand, GHG targets, and federal regulations, balancing natural gas, renewables, battery storage, and grid reliability while pursuing net-zero by 2035 and cost-effective decarbonization for industry, EVs, and growing populations.
Key Points
Ontario Electricity Transition is the province's shift to a reliable, low-GHG grid via renewables, storage, and policy.
✅ Demand up 75% by 2050; procurement adds 4,000 MW capacity.
✅ Gas use rises to 25% by 2030, challenging GHG goals.
✅ Tripling wind and solar with storage can cut costs and emissions.
Ontario's electricity sector stands at a pivotal crossroads. Once a leader in clean energy, the province now faces the dual challenge of meeting surging demand while adhering to stringent greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets. Recent developments, including the expansion of natural gas infrastructure and proposed federal regulations, have intensified debates about the future of Ontario's energy landscape, as this analysis explains in detail.
Rising Demand and the Need for Expansion
Ontario's electricity demand is projected to increase by 75% by 2050, equivalent to adding four and a half cities the size of Toronto to the grid. This surge is driven by factors such as industrial electrification, population growth, and the transition to electric vehicles. In response, as Ontario confronts a looming shortfall in the coming years, the provincial government has initiated its most ambitious energy procurement plan to date, aiming to secure an additional 4,000 megawatts of capacity by 2030. This includes investments in battery storage and natural gas generation to ensure grid reliability during peak demand periods.
The Role of Natural Gas: A Controversial Bridge
Natural gas has become a cornerstone of Ontario's strategy to meet immediate energy needs. However, this reliance comes with environmental costs. The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) projects that by 2030, natural gas will account for 25% of Ontario's electricity supply, up from 4% in 2017. This shift raises concerns about the province's ability to meet its GHG reduction targets and to embrace clean power in practice.
The expansion of gas-fired plants, including broader plans for new gas capacity, such as the Portlands Energy Centre in Toronto, has sparked public outcry. Environmental groups argue that these expansions could undermine local emissions reduction goals and exacerbate health issues related to air quality. For instance, emissions from the Portlands plant have surged from 188,000 tonnes in 2017 to over 600,000 tonnes in 2021, with projections indicating a potential increase to 1.65 million tonnes if the expansion proceeds as planned.
Federal Regulations and Economic Implications
The federal government's proposed clean electricity regulations aim to achieve a net-zero electricity sector by 2035. However, Ontario's government has expressed concerns that these regulations could impose significant financial burdens. An analysis by the IESO suggests that complying with the new rules would require doubling the province's electricity generation capacity, potentially adding $35 billion in costs by 2050, while other estimates suggest that greening Ontario's grid could cost $400 billion over time. This could result in higher residential electricity bills, ranging from $132 to $168 annually starting in 2033.
Pathways to a Sustainable Future
Experts advocate for a diversified approach to decarbonization that balances environmental goals with economic feasibility. Investments in renewable energy sources, such as new wind and solar resources, along with advancements in energy storage technologies, are seen as critical components of a sustainable energy strategy. Additionally, implementing energy efficiency measures and modernizing grid infrastructure can enhance system resilience and reduce emissions.
The Ontario Clean Air Alliance proposes phasing out gas power by 2035 through a combination of tripling wind and solar capacity and investing in energy efficiency and storage solutions. This approach not only aims to reduce emissions but also offers potential cost savings compared to continued reliance on gas-fired generation.
Ontario's journey toward a decarbonized electricity grid is fraught with challenges, including balancing reliability, clean, affordable electricity, and environmental sustainability. While natural gas currently plays a significant role in meeting the province's energy needs, its long-term viability as a bridge fuel remains contentious. The path forward will require careful consideration of technological innovations, regulatory frameworks, and public engagement to ensure a clean, reliable, and economically viable energy future for all Ontarians.
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
