Austin, Texas —
Counter to the somber mood that many metering manufacturers have been displaying in recent years, worldwide shipments of communication-enabled meters will grow to more than 100 million units annually in 2014, according to IHS Inc., a leading source of global insight and information.
Up from an estimated 82 million units in 2013, annual shipments of the meters will pass the hundred-million mark next year and remain there until at least 2017. By then, these units are expected to account for almost $5 billion in revenue for meter manufacturers, reveals the report entitled “The World Market for Smart Electricity Meters – 2013.”
The projection comes despite a rapidly decreasing North American market given the drying up of government funding, watered-down meter legislation in Latin America and continuing delays to the long-expected smart meter rollouts in the European Union.
“While it is true that growth in many of the traditional markets for advanced metering solutions has been disappointing in recent years, there is quite a bit of good news as well,” said Jacob Pereira, IHS analyst for smart utilities infrastructure. “China’s massive infrastructure-modernization effort includes a continuing countrywide overhaul of old metering systems, and that can make a big difference in a country of well over 400 million metering endpoints. In addition, recent announcements from some of the larger EU economies have added clarity to when their long-anticipated rollouts will begin in earnest, charging up the market.”
Even so, the majority of communicating meters being installed in Chinese homes and businesses do not meet the “smart” criterion for many people, Pereira noted. “These meters are simple one-way communicating devices used for automatic meter reading, not the advanced functions usually associated with the word ‘smart.’ However, the European meter rollouts expected to start up within the next few years will generally incorporate multiple other features,” Pereira added.
The news of future growth is sure to be a relief to many manufacturers who have become used to dismal news in recent years, such as the end to U.S. stimulus funding, BrazilÂ’s disappointing meter mandates and multiple delays to European rollouts.
“The market for communicating meters isn’t stopping, or even slowing for that matter,” Pereira observed. “It’s just changing locations.”
Quebec Windstorm 2025 disrupted Montreal and surrounding regions, triggering power outages, Hydro-Québec repairs, fallen trees, infrastructure damage, and transport delays, while emergency response and community resilience accelerated restoration and recovery efforts across the province.
Key Points
A severe April 29 windstorm with 100 km/h gusts caused outages, damage, and emergency recovery across Quebec.
✅ Gusts exceeded 100 km/h across Montreal and nearby regions
✅ Hydro-Québec restored power; crews cleared debris and lines
✅ Communities shared resources, shelters, and volunteer support
A powerful windstorm swept across Quebec on April 29, 2025, leaving tens of thousands of residents without electricity and causing significant damage to infrastructure. The storm's intensity disrupted daily life, leading to widespread outages across the province, fallen trees, and transportation delays.
Storm's Impact
The windstorm, characterized by gusts exceeding 100 km/h, struck various regions of Quebec, including Montreal and its surrounding areas. Hydro-Québec reported extensive power outages affecting numerous customers. The storm's ferocity led to the uprooting of trees, downing of power lines, and significant damage to buildings and vehicles.
Response and Recovery Efforts
In the aftermath, emergency services and utility companies mobilized to restore power and clear debris. Hydro-Québec crews worked tirelessly, much like Sudbury Hydro teams did in Ontario, to repair damaged infrastructure, while municipal authorities coordinated efforts to ensure public safety and facilitate the restoration process. Despite these efforts, some areas experienced prolonged outages, highlighting the storm's severity.
Community Resilience
Residents demonstrated remarkable resilience during the crisis. Many communities came together to support one another, as seen when Toronto neighborhoods rallied during lingering outages, sharing resources and providing assistance to those in need. Local shelters were set up to offer warmth and supplies to displaced individuals, and volunteers played a crucial role in the recovery process.
Lessons Learned
The storm underscored the importance of preparedness and infrastructure resilience, including vulnerabilities highlighted by a recent manhole fire affecting Hydro-Québec customers. In response, discussions have been initiated regarding the strengthening of power grids and the implementation of more robust emergency response strategies to mitigate the impact of future natural disasters.
As Quebec continues to recover, the collective efforts of its residents and emergency services serve as a testament to the province's strength and unity, even as similar strong-wind outages affect other regions, in the face of adversity.
Electricity used to be boring. Public utilities that provided power to homes and businesses were regulated monopolies and, by law, guaranteed a fixed rate-of-return on their generation, transmission, and distribution assets. Prices per kilowatt-hour were set by utility commissions after lengthy testimony from power companies, wanting higher rates, and consumer groups, wanting lower rates.
About 25 years ago, the electricity landscape started to change as economists and others argued that competition could lead to lower prices and stronger grid reliability. Opponents of competition argued that consumers weren’t knowledgeable enough about power markets to make intelligent choices in a competitive pricing environment. Nonetheless, today 20 states have total or partial competition for electricity, allowing independent power generators to compete in wholesale markets and retail electric providers (REPs) to compete for end-use customers, a dynamic echoed by the Alberta electricity market across North America. (Transmission, in all states, remains a regulated natural monopoly).
A recent study by the non-partisan Pacific Research Institute (PRI) provides compelling evidence that competition in power markets has been a boon for consumers. Using data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), PRI’s researchers found that wholesale electricity prices in competitive markets have been generally declining or flat, prompting discussions of free electricity business models, over the last five years. For example, compared to 2015, wholesale power prices in New England have dropped more than 44 percent, those in most Mid-Atlantic States have fallen nearly 42 percent, and in New York City they’ve declined by nearly 45 percent. Wholesale power costs have also declined in monopoly states, but at a considerably slower rate.
As for end-users, states that have competitive retail electricity markets have seen smaller price increases, as consumers can shop for electricity in Texas more cheaply than in monopoly states. Again, using EIA data, PRI found that in 14 competitive jurisdictions, retail prices essentially remained flat between 2008 and 2020. By contrast, retail prices jumped an average of 21 percent in monopoly states. The ten states with the largest retail price increases were all monopoly-based frameworks. A 2017 report from the Retail Energy Supply Association found customers in states that still have monopoly utilities saw their average energy prices increase nearly 19 percent from 2008 to 2017 while prices fell 7 percent in competitive markets over the same period.
The PRI study also observed that competition has improved grid reliability, the recent power disruptions in California and Texas, alongside disruptions in coal and nuclear sectors across the U.S., notwithstanding. Looking at two common measures of grid resiliency, PRI’s analysis found that power interruptions were 10.4 percent lower in competitive states while the duration of outages was 6.5 percent lower.
Citing data from the EIA between 2008 and 2018, PRI reports that greenhouse gas emissions in competitive states declined on average 12.1 percent compared to 7.3 percent in monopoly states. This result is not surprising, and debates over whether Israeli power supply competition can bring cheaper electricity mirror these dynamics. In a competitive wholesale market, independent power producers have an incentive to seek out lower-cost options, including subsidized renewables like wind and solar. By contrast, generators in monopoly markets have no such incentive as they can pass on higher costs to end-users. Perhaps the most telling case is in the monopoly state of Georgia where the cost to build nuclear Plant Vogtle has doubled from its original estimate of $14 billion 12 years ago. Overruns are estimated to cost Georgia ratepayers an average of $854, and there is no definite date for this facility to come on line. This type of mismanagement doesn’t occur in competitive markets.
Unfortunately, some critics are attempting to halt the momentum for electricity competition and have pointed to last winter’s “deep freeze” in Texas that left several million customers without power for up to a week. But this example is misplaced. Power outages in February were the result of unprecedented and severe weather conditions affecting electricity generation and fuel supply, and numerous proposals to improve Texas grid reliability have focused on weatherization and fuel resilience; the state simply did not have enough access to natural gas and wind generation to meet demand. Competitive power markets were not a factor.
The benefits of wholesale and retail competition in power markets are incontrovertible. Evidence shows that households and businesses in competitive states are paying less for electricity while grid reliability has improved. The facts also suggest that wholesale and retail competition can lead to faster reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In short, competition in power markets is good for consumers and good for the environment.
Bernard L. Weinstein is emeritus professor of applied economics at the University of North Texas, former associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University, and a fellow of Goodenough College, London. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.
Ontario Gas Plant Expansion aims to boost grid reliability as nuclear refurbishments proceed, using natural gas to meet electricity demand, despite critics urging renewables, energy storage, and efficiency to reduce carbon emissions, protecting investment growth.
Key Points
Ontario plan to expand gas plants for reliability during nuclear outages, sparking debate on emissions and clean options.
✅ IESO data: gas share rose from 4% (2017) to 10.4% (2022).
✅ Government cites nuclear refurbishments and demand growth.
✅ Critics propose storage, wind, solar, and efficiency.
The Ontario government is preparing to expand gas-fired power plants in Ontario; a move critics say will make the province's electricity system dirtier and could eventually leave taxpayers on the hook.
The province is currently soliciting bids for additional gas-fired electricity generation, which means new gas plants get built, or existing gas plants get expanded.
It's poised to be Ontario's biggest increase in the gas-fired power supply in more than a decade since the previous Liberal government scrapped two gas plants, in Mississauga and Oakville, at a cost the auditor general pegged at around $1 billion.
Doug Ford's energy minister, Todd Smith, says Ontario needs gas plants now to help meet an expected surge in demand for electricity as the province faces a supply shortfall in the coming years and to provide power while some units of the province's nuclear stations are down for refurbishment.
"It's really important to have natural gas as an insurance policy to keep the lights on and provide the reliability that we need," Smith said in an interview.
"We need natural gas for the short term, especially to get us through these refurbishments."
The portion of Ontario's electricity supply that comes from natural gas matters for the environment and the province's economy. Manufacturing companies increasingly seek clean power that emits as little carbon dioxide as possible.
The portion of Ontario's electricity supply that comes from natural gas matters for the environment and the province's economy. Manufacturing companies increasingly seek a power supply that emits as little carbon dioxide as possible.
Increasing the amount of gas-fired generation in the electricity system puts Ontario's ability to attract such investments at risk as it complicates balancing demand and emissions across the grid, says Evan Pivnick, program manager with Clean Energy Canada, a think tank.
"Building new natural gas (power plants) in Ontario today should be seen as an absolute last resort for meeting our energy needs," said Pivnick in an interview.
Ontario's electricity system has among the lowest rates of CO2 emissions in North America, with roughly half of the annual supply provided by nuclear power, one-quarter from hydro dams, and one-tenth from wind turbines.
However, Ontario's gas plants have produced a growing amount of electricity in recent years, despite an early report exploring a gas halt by the minister, and that trend will continue if new gas plants are built.
In 2017, gas- and oil-fired generation provided just four percent of Ontario's electricity supply, according to figures from the provincial agency that manages the grid, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO).
By 2022, that figure reached 10.4 percent.
Ontario doesn't need new gas plants to meet the electricity demand, says Bryan Purcell, vice president of policy and programs at The Atmospheric Fund. This agency invests in low-carbon projects in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area.
"We're quite concerned about where Ontario's electric grid is going," said Purcell. "Thankfully, there's still time to adjust course and look at other options."
According to Purcell and Pivnick, those options to avoid gas could include power storage (in which excess generated energy is stored for later use when electricity demand rises), wind and solar projects, or energy efficiency and conservation programs.
Uranium Critical Mineral Reclassification signals a US executive order directing USGS to restore critical status, boosting nuclear energy, domestic uranium mining, streamlined permitting, federal support, and energy security amid import reliance and supply chain risks.
Key Points
A policy relisting uranium as a critical mineral to unlock funding, speed permits, and strengthen U.S. nuclear security.
✅ Directs Interior to have USGS reconsider uranium classification
✅ Speeds permits for domestic uranium mining projects
✅ Targets import dependence and strengthens energy security
In a strategic move to bolster the United States' nuclear energy sector, former President Donald Trump issued an executive order on January 20, 2025, directing the Secretary of the Interior to instruct the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to reconsider classifying uranium as a critical mineral. This directive aims to enhance federal support and streamline permitting processes for domestic uranium projects, thereby strengthening U.S. energy security objectives.
Reclassification of Uranium as a Critical Mineral
The USGS had previously removed uranium from its critical minerals list in 2022, categorizing it as a "fuel mineral" that did not qualify for such designation. The recent executive order seeks to reverse this decision, recognizing uranium's strategic importance in the context of the nation's energy infrastructure and geopolitical considerations.
Implications for Domestic Uranium Production
Reclassifying uranium as a critical mineral is expected to unlock federal funding and expedite the permitting process for uranium mining projects within the United States. This initiative is particularly pertinent given the significant decline in domestic uranium production over the past two decades. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, domestic production has decreased by 96%, from 4.8 million pounds in 2014 to approximately 121,296 pounds in the third quarter of 2024.
Current Uranium Supply Dynamics
Despite the push for increased domestic production, the U.S. remains heavily reliant on uranium imports. In 2022, 27% of U.S. uranium purchases were sourced from Canada, with an additional 57% imported from countries including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Australia, and Russia; a recent ban on Russian uranium could further disrupt these supply patterns and heighten risks. This reliance on foreign sources has raised concerns about energy security, especially in light of recent geopolitical tensions.
Challenges and Considerations
While the executive order represents a significant step toward revitalizing the U.S. nuclear energy sector, several challenges persist, and energy dominance faces constraints that will shape implementation:
Regulatory Hurdles: Accelerating the permitting process for uranium mining projects involves navigating complex environmental and regulatory frameworks, though recent permitting reforms for geothermal hint at potential pathways, which can be time-consuming and contentious.
Market Dynamics: The uranium market is subject to global supply and demand fluctuations, and domestic producers may face competition from established international suppliers.
Infrastructure Development: Expanding domestic uranium production necessitates substantial investment in mining infrastructure and workforce development, areas that have been underfunded in recent years.
Broader Implications for Nuclear Energy Policy
The executive order aligns with a broader strategy to revitalize the U.S. nuclear energy industry, where ongoing nuclear innovation is critical to delivering stable, low-emission power. The increasing demand for nuclear energy is driven by the global push for zero-emissions energy sources and the need to support power-intensive technologies, such as artificial intelligence servers.
Former President Trump's executive order to reclassify uranium as a critical mineral, aligning with his broader energy agenda and a prior pledge to end the 'war on coal', signifies a pivotal moment for the U.S. nuclear energy sector. By potentially unlocking federal support, including programs advanced by the Nuclear Innovation Act, and streamlining permitting processes, this initiative aims to reduce dependence on foreign uranium sources and enhance national energy security. However, realizing these objectives will require addressing regulatory challenges, market dynamics, and infrastructure needs to ensure the successful revitalization of the domestic uranium industry.
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.”
Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project faces NEB certificate review, with public hearings, Indigenous consultation, and cross-border approval weighing permit vs certificate timelines, potential land expropriation, and Hydro's 2020 in-service date for the 308-MW intertie.
Key Points
A cross-border hydro line linking Manitoba and Minnesota, now under NEB review through a permit or certificate process.
✅ NEB recommends certificate with public hearings and cabinet approval
✅ Stakeholders cite land, health, and economic impacts along route
A recommendation from the National Energy Board could push back the construction start date of a $453-million hydroelectric transmission line from Manitoba to Minnesota.
In a letter to federal Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr, the regulatory agency recommends using a "certificate" approval process, which could take more time than the simpler "permit" process Manitoba Hydro favours.
The certificate process involves public hearings, reflecting First Nations intervention seen in other power-line debates, to weigh the merits of the project, which would then go to the federal cabinet for approval.
The NEB says this process would allow for more procedural flexibility and "address Aboriginal concerns that may arise in the circumstances of this process."
The Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project would provide the final link in a chain that brings hydroelectricity from generating stations in northern Manitoba, through the Bipole III transmission line and, like the New England Clean Power Link project, across the U.S. border as part of a 308-megawatt deal with the Green Bay-based Wisconsin Public Service.
When Hydro filed its application in December 2016, it had expected to have approval by the end of August 2017 and to begin construction on the line in mid-December, in order to have the line in operation by May or June 2020.
Groups representing stakeholders along the proposed route of the transmission line had mixed reactions to the energy board's recommendation.
A lawyer representing a coalition of more than 120 landowners in the Rural Municipality of Taché and around La Broquerie, Man., welcomed the opportunity to have a more "fulsome" discussion about the project.
"I think it's a positive step. As people become more familiar with the project, the deficiencies with it become more obvious," said Kevin Toyne, who represents the Southeast Stakeholders Coalition.
Toyne said some coalition members are worried that Hydro will forcibly expropriate land in order to build the line, while others are worried about potential economic and health impacts of having the line so close to their homes. They have proposed moving the line farther east.
When the Clean Environment Commission — an arm's-length provincial government agency — held public hearings on the proposed route earlier this year, the coalition brought their concerns forward, echoing Site C opposition voiced by northerners, but Toyne says both the commission and Hydro ignored them.
Hydro still aiming for 2020 in-service date
The Manitoba Métis Federation also participated in those public hearings. MMF president David Chartrand worries about the impact a possible delay, as seen with the Site C work halt tied to treaty rights, could have on revenue from sales of hydroelectric power to the U.S.
"I know that a lot of money, billions have been invested on this line. And if the connection line is not done, then of course this will be sitting here, not gaining any revenue, which will affect every Métis in this province, given our Hydro bill's going to go up," Chartrand said.The NEB letter to Minister Carr requests that he "determine this matter in an expedited manner."
Manitoba Hydro spokesperson Bruce Owen said in an email that the Crown corporation will participate in whatever process, permit or certificate, the NEB takes.
"Manitoba Hydro does not have any information at this point in time that would change the estimated in-service date (May-June 2020) for the Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project," he said.
The federal government "is currently reviewing the NEB's recommendation to designate the project as subject to a certificate, which would result in public hearings," said Alexandre Deslongchamps, a spokesperson for Carr.
"Under the National Energy Board Act, an international power line requires either the approval by the NEB through a permit or approval by the Government of Canada by a certificate. Both must be issued by the NEB," he wrote in an email to CBC News.
By law, the certificate process is not to take longer than 15 months.
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.
